n 


At 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Demeter  of  Knidos 
(British  Museum) 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


ITS  SPIRIT  AND  PRINCIPLES 


BY 

EDMUND  VON  MACH,  Ph.D. 


GINN  &  COMPANY 

BOSTON  •  NEW  YORK  •  CHICAGO  •  LONDON  i 


Copyright,  1903 
Bt  EDMUND  VON  MACH 

ALL  RIGHTS  RBSBRVBD 
310.7 


GINN  &  COMPANY  •  PRO- 
PRIETORS .  BOSTON  .  U.S.A. 


TO 

MY  MOTHER 

WHOSE  BEAUTIFUL  LIFE 
HAS  KINDLED  IN  ME 
THE  PASSION  FOR  BEAUTY 
AND  TO 
MY  WIFE 
I  DEDICATE  THIS  BOOK 


PREFACE 


Greek  sculpture  is  much  admired  but  little  known. 
The  ancient  statues  for  years  have  been  studied  as  in- 
teresting curios  rather  than  as  things  alive.  The  dead 
have  no  claims  upon  us;  the  living  alone  can  teach  us, 
and  Greek  sculpture  is  not  dead.  The  vitality  of  its 
spirit  and  of  its  principles  is  such  that  it  has  outlasted 
centuries  and  deserves  a  wider  recognition  than  it  com- 
monly receives. 

This  book  is  addressed  to  all  students  of  art,  to 
executing  artists,  and  to  the  general  public.  It  is 
designed  in  the  first  place  to  give  pleasure,  without 
which  the  study  of  art  is  impossible,  and  in  the  second 
place  to  be  serviceable  to  all  serious  students  not  only 
by  the  presentation  of  the  most  important  subjects  but 
also  by  the  suggestion  of  others,  the  treatment  of  which 
lies  outside  the  scope  of  an  art  book. 

For  the  benefit  of  the  reader  the  book  is  divided  in 
two  parts.  The  lessons  drawn  from  Greek  sculpture 
are  presented  first.  The  order  may  be  inverted,  how- 
ever, with  the  exception  of  Part  I,  Chapters  V~VIII, 
on  the  principles  of  relief  sculpture,  which  ought  to  be 
read  before  one  enters  on  the  study  of  the  Parthenon, 
Part  II,  Chapters  XVIII  and  XIX. 

vii 


viii 


PREFACE 


This  book  contains  no  multitude  of  details.  Monu- 
ments which  are  omitted  may  be  readily  inserted,  how- 
ever, and  may  thus  help  to  enforce  the  lessons  taught  by 
those  monuments  which  are  discussed.  After  the  pedi- 
ments of  the  temple  of  Zeus  in  Olympia,  for  instance, 
Part  II,  Chapter  XVI,  the  metopes  of  the  same  temple 
may  be  studied ;  and  in  connection  with  the  Parthenon, 
Part  II,  Chapters  XVIII  and  XIX,  many  contempora- 
neous temple  sculptures  may  find  their  place.  In  order 
to  facilitate  such  a  use  of  the  book  the  author  purposes 
to  issue  a  collection  of  about  five  hundred  reproduc- 
tions of  Greek  statues  and  reliefs  in  uniform  size. 
The  large  Brunn-Arndt  collection  of  plates  published 
by  the  Bruckmann  Company  in  Munich,  or  similar 
collections  of  photographs,  may  serve  the  same  pur- 
pose. Suggestions  in  this  direction  will  be  found  in 
the  Notes. 

The  author  is  indebted  to  his  pupils  and  his  friends 
for  their  enthusiasm  and  interest.  He  owes  special 
thanks  to  Dr.  J.  F.  Coar,  Messrs.  P.  W.  Long  and 
G.  C.  Hirst,  and  to  the  members  of  the  Editorial  De- 
partment of  Ginn  &  Company  for  great  kindness  and 
many  valuable  suggestions. 

Cambridge,  Mass., 
October,  1903. 


CONTENTS 


PART  ONE 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  Fundamental  Considerations   i 

II.  Greek  Sculpture  in  its  Relation  to  Nature:  the 

Mental  Image   8 

III.  The  Appeal  of  Greek  Sculpture   17 

IV.  The  Artist  and  his  Public   29 

V.  The  Principles  of  Greek  Relief  Sculpture    ...  37 

VI.  The  Different  Technique  of  High  and  Low  Relief 

Sculpture   46 

VII.  Greek  Relief  Sculpture  in  its  Relation  to  Archi- 
tecture: Reliefs  on  Rounded  Surfaces  ....  53 
VIII.  Physical    Effort   and    Pleasure   of  looking  at 

Extended  Compositions   60 

IX.  The  Coloring  of  Greek  Sculpture   67 

X.  Art  Conditions  before  the  Seventh  Century  b.c.    .  79 
XI.  Material,  Technique,  Destructive   Forces,  Early 

Ignorance,  and  Sources  of  Knowledge    ....  91 


PART  TWO 

XII.  The  First  Attempts  :  in  the  Round  103 

XIII.  The  First  Attempts:  in  Relief  123 

XIV.  Conservatism  ;    Ready    Skill  before  Freedom  of 

Conception  144 

iz 


X  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XV.  Broken  Fetters:  a  Period  of  Transition    .   .    .  .158 

XVI.  Sculptured  Temple  Decorations  178 

XVII.  Realization  of  the  Noblest  Ideas  :  the  Divine  Side 

OF  Human  Nature  202 

XVIII.  The  Parthenon.    I.  Metopes  and  Frieze  211 

XIX.  The  Parthenon.    II.  The  Pediments  231 

XX.  The  Human  Body  248 

XXI.  The  Individual:  Soul  and  Body  262 

XXII.  Formulated  Principles  ;  Perfect  Skill  290 

XXIII.  Autumn  Days  299 

Notes   319 

Bibliography   343 

Index   347 

Plates   359 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


The  illustrations  are  from  original  photographs  unless  otherwise  stated.  The  majority 
are  reproductions  of  photographs  and  of  plates  in  the  Harvard  University  collections, 
for  the  use  of  which  the  author  is  greatly  indebted  to  the  courtesy  of  the  curator, 
Professor  Charles  H.  Moore,  and  of  the  librarian,  Mr.  W.  C.  Lane. 

Illustrations  which  are  taken  from  the  Brunn-Amdt  collection  of  plates  are  marked  B.  A., 
with  the  numbers  of  the  plates  added. 

FULL-PAGE  ILLUSTRATIONS 

FACING 


Demeter  of  Knidos :  London,  British  Museum  Frontispiece.  ^^^^ 

Bust  of  Perikles  :  London,  British  Museum  2 

Sophokles :  Rome,  Lateran  Museum  8 

Apollo  from  Olympia :  Olympia  Museum  i8 

Nike  of  Samothrace :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum  30 

Horsemen,  west  frieze  of  Parthenon :  Athens  (in  original  position  on  Parthe- 
non ;  B.  A.,  503)  38 

Amazons,  frieze  of  Maussoleion  :  London,  British  Museum  46 

Battle  scene,  frieze  of  Theseion :  Athens,  Theseion  (B.  A.,  407)  54 

East  and  west  friezes  of  Parthenon  (from  Michaelis,  Der  Parthenon^ 

Pis.  IX  and  XIV)  60 

"  Venus  Genetrix  " :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum  68 

"Apollo  "  of  Tenea :  Munich,  Glyptothek  80 

Artemis  of  Gabii :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum  92 

Figure  from  the  bottom  of  the  sea :  Athens,  National  Museum   .    ,    .    .  .100 

"Hera"  of  Samos:  Paris,  Louvre  Museum  106 

Hermes  and  a  "  Grace  " :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum  134 

Akropolis  figure  (head) :  Athens,  Akropolis  Museum  144 

Aristogeiton:  Naples  Museum  (B.  A.,  326)  158 

Discus  Thrower,  after  Myron  :  London,  British  Museum  168 

Spearman  of  Aigina:  Munich,  Glyptothek  178 

Peirithoos  (head) :  Olympia  Museum  188 

Lemnian  Athena  (head) :  Bologna  Museum  (from  Furtwangler,  Meisterwerke^ 

PI  III)  202 

Seated  gods,  east  frieze,  Parthenon:  London,  British  Museum  212 

Horsemen,  west  frieze,  Parthenon :  Athens  (in  original  position  on  Par- 
thenon)  218 

The  "Three  Fates,"  east  pediment,  Parthenon:  London,  British  Museum  .  232 
Hera  (head  from  Argos,  correct  view) :  Athens,  National  Museum  ....  248 

Hermes  of  Praxiteles  (head) :  Olympia  Museum  262 

xi 


xii  ILLUSTRATIONS 

FAaNG 
PAGE 

Maussolos :  London,  British  Museum  286 

Apoxyomenos,  after  Lysippos :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum  296 

Aphrodite  of  Melos  (correct  view) :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum  300 

Pergamon  altar  (reconstructed)  and  one  slab:  Berlin,  Pergamon  Museum  .    .  314 

Dying  Gaul:  Rome,  Capitoline  Museum  316 

Athena  slab,  Pergamon  altar :  Berlin,  Pergamon  Museum  322 

PLATES 

PLATB  FIGURB 

Base  from  Mantineia :  Athens,  National  Museum   I  i 

Slab,  east  frieze,  Parthenon :  London,  British  Museum   ....  I  2 

Spartan  tombstone :  Berlin  Museum  (B.  A.,  227  a)   I  3 

Grave  relief  ("  Ino-Leukothea ") :  Rome,  Villa  Albani     ....  I  4 

Cow,  south  frieze,  Parthenon :  London,  British  Museum     ...  II  i 

Relief  from  Assos :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum   II  2 

Warriors,  Athena-Nike  temple  frieze:  London,  British  Museum 

(B.  A,  118)   II  3 

Egyptian  standing  figure  :  Gizeh  Museum   Ill  i 

Stele  by  Alxenor :  Athens,  National  Museum   Ill  2 

Stele  of  Aristion  by  Aristokles:  Athens,  National  Museum     .    .  Ill  3 

Stele  of  Lyseas  (painted) :  Athens,  National  Museum     ....  Ill  4 

Gate  of  Lionesses :  Mycenae   IV  i 

Strangford  "Apollo  " :  London,  British  Museum   IV  2 

"Apollo  "  of  Thera :  Athens,  National  Museum   IV  3 

"Apollo  "  of  Orchomenos  :  Athens,  National  Museum    ....  IV  4 

Tlying  figure  from  Delos :  Athens,  National  Museum   V  i 

Tyrannicides :  Naples  Museum   V  2 

Nike  of  Paionios :  Olympia  Museum   V  3 

"  Harpy  "  tomb  frieze :  London,  British  Museum   VI  1-4 

Relief  from  Thasos :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum    VII  1-3 

Akropolis  figure  (earliest) :  Athens,  Akropolis  Museum  ....  VIII  i 

Akropolis  figure  (later) :  Athens,  Akropolis  Museum   VIII  2 

Akropolis  figure  (overdelicacy) :  Athens,  Akropolis  Museum  .    .  VIII  3 

Hera  of  Olympia  (head) :  Olympia  Museum   IX  i 

Bearded  warrior  (head) :  Athens,  Akropolis  Museum   IX  2 

Akropolis  figure  (fantastic  curls) :  Athens,  Akropolis  Museum     .  IX  3 

Akropolis  figure  (simple  head) :  Athens,  Akropolis  Museum    .    .  IX  4 

Centaur  and  girl,  Olympia:  Olympia  Museum   X  i 

Marsyas,  after  Myron :  Rome,  Lateran  Museum   X  2 

Centaur  and  girl,  Parthenon  metope :  London,  British  Museum     .  X  3 

Athlete  ("Apollo  "  with  the  Omphalos) :  Athens,  National  Museum  XI  I 
Charioteer  of  Delphi :  Delphi  Museum  (after  Monuments  Piot,  IV, 

PI.  XV)   XI  2 

Athlete  (Choiseul-Gouffier  "Apollo"):  London,  British  Museum  .  XI  3 


ILLUSTRATIONS  xiii 

PLATE  FIGURE 

Elevation  of  Temple  of  Aigina  (reconstructed)   XII  i 

View  of  Parthenon   XII  2 

Figures  of  south  comer  of  east  pediment,  Parthenon :  London, 

British  Museum   XII  3 

Figures  of  north  corner  of  east  pediment,  Parthenon  :  London, 

British  Museum   XII  4 

Dying  warrior,  from  Aigina :  Munich,  Glyptothek   XIII  i 

Dying  warrior,  from  Aigina  (cast,  arm  removed)   XIII  2 

«*  Kladeos,"  east  pediment,  Olympia :  Olympia  Museum  .  .  .  XIII  3 
"Kephissos,"  west   pediment,  Parthenon:    London,  British 

Museum   XIII  4 

Plan  of  Olympia  pediments  (from  Overbeck,  Griechische  Skulp- 

tur,  Fig.  77)   XIV  I 

Carrey's  drawings  of  the  Parthenon  pediments  (from  Overbeck, 

Griechische  Skulptur,  Fig.  103)   XIV  2 

Typhon,  pedimental  decoration :  Athens,  Akropolis  Museum  XIV  3 

Center,  east  pediment,  Olympia :  Olympia  Museum    ....  XIV  4 

Center,  west  pediment,  Aigina :  Munich,  Glyptothek  ....  XV  i 

North  comer,  east  pediment,  Olympia :  Olympia  Museum  .    .  XV  2 

Maidens,  east  frieze,  Parthenon :  London,  British  Museum     .  XV  3 

Fragments  from  Argos :  Athens,  National  Museum    ....  XV  4 

Peirithoos  of  Olympia  (wrong  view) :  Olympia  Museum  .    .    .  XVI  i 

Hera  of  Argos  (wrong  view) :  Athens,  National  Museum  .  .  XVI  2 
Huge  apobates,  north  frieze,  Parthenon:   London,  British 

Museum   XVI  3 

Plan  of  arrangement  of  Parthenon  frieze   XVI  4 

Lemnian  Athena:  Furtwangler's  arrangement  (from  Furtwang- 

ler's  Meisterwerke,  PI.  II)   XVII  I 

Caryatid :  London,  British  Museum   XVII  2 

"  Theseus,"  east    pediment,    Parthenon :    London,  British 

Museum   XVIII  i 

Helios  and  horses,  east  pediment,  Parthenon :  London,  British 

Museum   XVIII  2 

Selene's  horse,  east  pediment,  Parthenon:  London,  British 

Museum   XVIII  3 

Niobid  Chiaramonti :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XIX  I 

"Nike,"  east  pediment,  Parthenon:  London,  British  Museum  XIX  2 

Iris,  east  pediment,  Parthenon :  London,  British  Museum  .  .  XIX  3 
Rapid  movement,  north  frieze,  Parthenon:  London,  British 

Museum   XX  i 

Beginning  of  cavalcade,  north  frieze,  Parthenon:  London, 

British  Museum   XX  2 

End  of  cavalcade,  north  frieze,  Parthenon:  London,  British 

Museum   XX  3 


xiv  ILLUSTRATIONS 

PLATB  FIGURB 

Slower  movement,  north  frieze,  Parthenon:  London,  British 

Museum   XX  4 

Conquered  centaur,  metope,  Parthenon:   London,  British 

Museum   XXI  i 

Conquered  Greek,  metope,  Parthenon:  London,  British  Museum  XXI  2 

Doryphoros  (Spear  Bearer),  after  Polykleitos :  Naples  Museum  XXII  i 
Vaison   Diadoumenos,   after   Polykleitos :    London,  British 

Museum  (B.  A.,  272)   XXII  2 

Delian  Diadoumenos,  after  Polykleitos:   Athens,  National 

Museum   XXII  3 

Doryphoros  (head) :  Naples  Museum   XXIII  i 

Doryphoros(bronzeHerme,fromHerculaneum):  Naples  Museum  XXIII  2 

Head  from  Argos  :  Athens,  National  Museum   XXIII  3 

Belvedere  Apollo  (head) :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum     ....  XXIII  4 

Berlin  Amazon :  Berlin  Museum   XXIV  i 

Capitoline  Amazon :  Rome,  Capitoline  Museum   XXIV  2 

Mattel  Amazon  :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XXIV  3 

Charioteer,  frieze,  Maussoleion  :  London,  British  Museum  .  ,  XXV  i 
Nike,  Athena-Nike  temple  balustrade:  Athens,  Akropolis 

Museum   XXV  2 

Satyr  ("  Marble  Faun  ") :  Rome,  Capitoline  Museum  ....  XXVI  i 

"  Sauroktonos " :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XXVI  2 

"  Sauroktonos  "  :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum    ...  *   XXVII  i 

Satyr  (torso) :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum   XXVII  2 

Satyr  (tail  preserved) :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XXVII  3 

*'  Sauroktonos "  :  Dresden,  Albertinum   XXVII  4 

Hermes  of  Praxiteles :  Olympia  Museum   XXVIII  i 

Aphrodite,  after  Praxiteles  (from  cast,  with  tin  removed; 

B.  A.,371)   XXVIII  2 

Hermes  of  Praxiteles  (side  view) :  Olympia  Museum  ....  XXIX  i 
Aphrodite,  after  Praxiteles  (with  tin  garment) :  Rome,  Vatican 

Museum   XXIX  2 

Apoxyomenos,  after  Lysippos  (side  view) :   Rome,  Vatican 

Museum   XXIX  3 

Harvard  Meleager :  Cambridge,  Mass.,  Fogg  Museum,  Harvard 

University   XXX  i 

Meleager:  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XXX  2 

Niobe  and  daughter :  Florence,  Uflazi  Gallery   XXXI  i 

Easy  drapery,  column  from  Ephesos :  London,  British  Museum  XXXI  2 

Nike  of  Samothrace  (side  view)   XXXI  3 

Amazons,  frieze  (Maussoleion) :  London,  British  Museum  .    .  XXXII  i 

Amazons,  frieze  (Maussoleion)  :  London,  British  Museum  .    .  XXXII  2 

Alexander  Sarcophagus :  Constantinople,  Ottoman  Museum   .  XXXIII  1 

Lycean  Sarcophagus :  Constantinople,  Ottoman  Museum    .   .  XXXIII  2 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


XV 


PLATB  FIGURE 


Heads  from  Alexander  Sarcophagus :  Constantinople,  Ottoman 

Museum   XXXIV 

Aphrodite  of  Melos  (front  view) :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum    .    .  XXXV 

Aphrodite  of  Aries  :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum   XXXV 

Aphrodite  of  Capua :  Naples  Museum   XXXV 

Nike  of  Brescia  :  Brescia,  Museo  Patrio   XXXV 

Belvedere  Apollo:  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XXXVI 

Artemis  of  Versailles :  Paris,  Louvre  Museum  .    .    .    .    .    .  XXXVI 

Laokoon  group :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XXXVII 

Goddess  on  horseback,  Pergamon  altar:  Berlin,  Pergamon 

Museum   XXXVII 

Laokoon  (head) :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XXXVIII 

Zeus  Otricoli  (bust) :  Rome,  Vatican  Museum   XXXVIII 

Zeus,  Pergamon  altar :  Berlin,  Pergamon  Museum      ....  XXXVIII 

Amazon  :  Naples  Museum   XXXVIII 

Knidian  Aphrodite,  Kaufmann  head  (front  view) :  Berlin,  private 

collection  (B.  A.,  i6i)   XXXIX 

Weber  head  (Comte  Laborde  head) :  Paris,  private  collection  .  XXXIX 
Head  from  south  slope  of  Akropolis:  Athens,  National  Museum 

(B.  A.,  174  a)   XXXIX 

Head  from  Pergamon  :  Berlin,  Pergamon  Museum  (B.  A.,  159)  XXXIX 

Son  of  Niobe:  Florence,  Uffizi  Gallery  (B.  A.,  315)     ....  XL 

Themis  of  Rhamnos  :  Athens,  National  Museum  (B.A.,  476)  .  XL 
Knidian  Aphrodite,  Kaufmann  head  (profile):  Berlin,  private 

collection  (B.  A.,  161)   XL 

Giustiniani  "  Hestia" :  Rome,  Torlonia  Museum  (B.  A.,  491)  .  XL 


1-3 
I 
2 
3 
4 
I 
2 
I 

2 
I 
2 
3 
4 

I 

2 

3 
4 
I 
2 

3 
4 


INTRODUCTION 


The  study  of  Greek  sculpture  was  unknown  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ago.  Winckelmann  was  the 
first  to  pay  attention  to  it,  and  to  publish  a  book  on 
the  subject  in  1755.  The  excavations  in  Pompeii  and 
Herculaneum,  the  removal  of  the  Parthenon  sculptures 
to  London  by  Lord  Elgin,  and  above  all,  the  regener- 
ation of  Greece  and  the  subsequent  rich  finds  in  her 
soil,  added  zest  to  the  continually  growing  interest  in 
this  new  study. 

In  the  eighteenth  century  people  were  unable  to 
judge  of  ancient  art  properly  because  they  possessed 
few  originals  and  were  obliged  to  look  through  the 
spectacles  of  a  later  Roman  civilization. 

The  scientific  nineteenth  century  probed  deeper.  The 
spade  of  the  excavator  brought  long-forgotten  treasures 
to  light;  scholars  trained  in  the  severe  school  of  phi- 
lology arranged  and  classified  the  material,  and  little 
or  nothing  was  left  to  the  art  critic.  The  subject,  on 
the  whole,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  scientific  archaeolo- 
gists, who  presented  it  in  more  or  less  exhaustive  his- 
tories of  Greek  sculpture  or  Greek  art.  All  their  books 
follow  the  historic  development.  They  are  histories  of 
ancient  artists. 

xvii 


xviii 


INTRODUCTION 


Such  a  treatment  of  the  subject,  although  it  brought 
order  out  of  the  chaos  of  the  preceding  century,  made 
a  clear  understanding  of  the  spirit  of  Greek  sculpture 
impossible;  for  it  overburdened  the  books  with  such 
facts  as  are  interesting  only  to  the  specialist  for  use  in 
further  discoveries,  and  cannot  legitimately  appeal  to 
the  artistic  public.  The  archaeological  discussions,  there- 
fore, largely  account  for  the  present  neglect  of  ancient 
art  on  the  part  of  artists  and  intelligent  laymen. 

The  eighteenth-century  writers  tried  to  generalize 
without  having  sufficient  facts  at  their  disposal;  the 
nineteenth-century  scholars  collected  the  facts,  and  it 
therefore  becomes  our  duty  in  the  twentieth  century  to 
present  the  lessons  which  can  be  learned  from  them  and 
to  introduce  the  reader  to  the  spirit  and  the  principles 
of  Greek  sculpture. 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Part  One 
chapter  i 

FUNDAMENTAL  CONSIDERATIONS 

The  spirit  of  Greek  sculpture  is  synonymous  with  the 
spirit  of  sculpture.  It  is  simple,  and  therefore  defies 
definitions.  We  may  feel  it,  but  we  cannot  express  it. 
The  reason  it  has  lost  its  power  to-day  is  that  we 
have  listened  to  what  has  been  said  about  it  instead 
of  coming  in  contact  with  it.  No  amount  of  book 
knowledge  makes  up  for  the  lack  of  familiarity  with 
original  pieces  of  sculpture.  "  Open  your  eyes,  study 
the  statues,  look,  think,  and  look  again,"  is  the  precept 
to  all  who  would  learn  to  know  Greek  sculpture. 

Some  introductory  helps  and  guides,  to  be  sure,  are 
not  to  be  despised:  they  clear  one's  mind  of  prevailing 
misconceptions.  Suggestions  in  this  direction,  however, 
often  do  more  than  exhaustive  discussions,  for  they 
stimulate  individual  thought 


2 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Rapidity  of  Growth 

Greek  sculpture  was  of  remarkably  rapid  growth, 
developing  under  conditions  which  are  not  generally 
believed  to  be  favorable.  Few  countries  ever  under- 
went such  rapid  changes  as  Greece,  for  the  sudden- 
ness with  which  the  Mycenaean  civilization  was  swept 
away,  perhaps  by  the  Dorians,  is  unequaled  in  history. 
The  three  or  four  centuries  following  upon  the  Dorian 
invasion  (about  looo  b.c.)  —  the  dark  middle  ages  of 
Greece  —  were  full  of  violent  political  upheavals;  and 
the  whole  of  the  historic  period  of  Greece  was  charac- 
terized by  unsettled  conditions.  States  rose  and  fell 
with  startling  rapidity.  Athens  was  an  insignificant 
community  before  the  time  of  Peisistratos,  and  is  hardly 
mentioned  in  the  Homeric  poems  (about  800  b.c).  Her 
ascendency  dates  from  the  Persian  wars  (490-480  b.c), 
but  before  the  century  closed,  her  glory  was  over. 
Alexander  the  Great  came  to  the  throne  in  336  b.c; 
he  carried  his  standards  to  India,  and  when  he  died 
Macedonia  was  destined  no  longer  to  be  a  world  power. 
Pergamon  came  into  prominence  in  241  b.c  under 
Attalos  I,  and  disappeared  from  among  the  powers  of 
the  earth  in  133  b.c  America  is  spoken  of  as  a  new 
country,  but  it  is  almost  as  old  as  Greece  was  when  she 
was  absorbed  by  Rome;  and  more  years  have  elapsed 
since  the  American  Declaration  of  Independence  than 
intervened  between  the  rise  and  fall  of  Athens. 


Perikles 
(British  Museum) 


FUNDAMENTAL  CONSIDERATIONS 


3 


The  Triumph  of  the  Few 

Peace  and  leisure  are  commonly  believed  to  be  the 
prerequisites  for  a  period  of  great  art.  They  surely  are, 
but  they  must  not  be  understood  to  refer  to  external 
conditions  only.  It  is  not  the  surroundings  of  the  peo- 
ple that  tell,  but  their  state  of  mind ;  nor  is  it  necessary 
that  all  share  the  blessing  of  a  noble  character.  The 
fervor  of  the  few  has  often  achieved  the  triumphs  of  a 
nation.  It  is  a  mistake  to  credit  all  the  Athenians,  or 
even  the  majority  of  them,  with  an  artist's  love  of  the 
beautiful.  The  petty,  unjust  middle-class  man,  as  he 
appears  in  Aristophanes's  comedies  and  in  Plato's  dia- 
logues, with  his  narrow  horizon  and  jealous  prejudices, 
does  not  explain  the  sudden  rise  of  Athens,  though  he 
may,  and  probably  does,  account  for  her  rapid  fall.  It 
was  in  spite  of  him  and  his  fellows  that  Athens  gained 
her  superiority. 

In  the  field  of  art,  therefore,  the  importance  of  the 
individual  artists  cannot  be  overestimated.  Sir  Robert 
Ball  is  on  record  as  saying  that  scientific  discoveries  fol- 
low the  law  of  necessity,  though  they  may  be  hastened 
by  the  presence  of  big  men.  If  Watt  had  not  discov- 
ered the  power  of  steam,  some  one  else  would  have  done 
it;  and  several  men  were  ready  to  announce  to  the 
world  Darwin's  theory  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest. 
"But,"  Sir  Robert  added,  "what  would  the  world  of 
music  be,  if  Beethoven  had  not  lived  ? "    What  is  true 


4 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


of  music  is  true  also  of  sculpture,  or  of  any  of  the 
thought -expressing  fine  arts.  Some  of  the  noblest 
Greek  statues  would  never  have  been  created  if  Phei- 
dias  had  not  lived.  "  Dost  thou  not  know,"  exclaims 
an  ancient  writer,  "that  there  is  a  Praxitelean  head 
in  every  stone?"  But,  it  may  be  added,  it  takes  a 
Praxiteles  to  bring  it  out.  Only  after  the  confusing 
mass  of  encasing  rock  has  been  hewn  away  does  the 
head  reveal  its  meaning.  Most  of  us,  to  understand  a 
thought,  need  its  expression.  The  reality  of  the  thought, 
however,  cannot  be  denied  even  when  no  expression 
has  been  vouchsafed  it,  for  it  is  independent  of  our 
conception  of  it. 

Small  Range  of  Simple  Ideas 

The  realm  of  thoughts  expressed  in  Greek  sculpture 
was  circumscribed  and  far  removed  from  the  complexity 
of  modern  times.  A  few  simple  ideas  well  expressed 
form  the  charm  of  Greek  art.  Adequacy  of  expression, 
indeed,  has  at  times  been  considered  an  essential  part 
of  Greek  art ;  and  many  have  spoken  of  Shelley,  Keats, 
Holderlin,  and  others,  as  Greek,  not  because  these  men 
thought  as  the  ancients  did  but  because  they  knew 
how  to  express  their  feelings  adequately.  They  were 
Greek,  however,  only  in  part,  for  they  lacked  the  second 
quality  of  ancient  art,  —  simplicity.  True  simplicity 
with  human  beings  is  rarely  spontaneous.  The  beauty 
of  the  Parthenon  was  the  result  of  much  clear  thinking 


FUNDAMENTAL  CONSIDERATIONS  5 

and  right  feeling.  It  was,  therefore,  understood  by  all, 
and  had  become  in  the  very  year  of  its  completion,  as 
Plutarch  says,  a  classic. 

The  Appeal  of  a  Work  of  Art 

The  power  to  appeal  to  all  classes  of  men  is  given 
to  but  few  artists,  for  it  requires  not  only  great  skill 
but  also  a  sympathetic  knowledge  of  human  nature. 
This  fact  is  often  overlooked.  People  forget  that  the 
appeal  of  a  work  of  art  is  directed  to  the  higher  faculties 
of  man  but  that  it  is  made  through  his  eyes.  Few 
things  are  seen  just  as  they  are.  The  house  that 
we  think  we  see  is  very  different  from  the  pyramidal 
image  of  the  house  that  appears  on  the  retina  of  our 
eye.  The  only  reason  why  we  are  not  misled  is  that 
we  are  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  house.  No  such 
familiarity  can  be  supposed  to  exist  with  the  work  of 
art.  The  discrepancy  between  the  imagined  object  and 
its  realistic  representation  must  be  taken  into  consider- 
ation and  allowances  be  made  for  the  peculiarities  of 
human  vision.  The  artist  is  not  permitted  to  forget 
that  in  order  to  convey  his  thoughts  he  borrows  shapes 
from  objective  nature,  and  that  he  makes  his  appeal 
to  human,  that  is  subjective  nature.  He  will  select 
of  all  possible  subjects  only  those  that  are  readily 
understood,  and  carve  them  in  a  way  that  is  calcu- 
lated to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  human  power  of 
perception.    The  moral  and  intellectual  development 


6 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


of  a  race,  therefore,  requires  changes  in  the  selection 
of  suitable  subjects  and  also  in  the  mode  of  their 
representation. 

Periods  of  Greek  Sculpture 

The  Greeks  worked  along  these  lines.  It  is  there- 
fore not  astonishing  that  their  sculpture  can  be  divided 
into  periods  to  correspond  to  the  several  steps  in  their 
civilization.  The  spirit  of  their  art  never  changed. 
Not  all  sculptors,  to  be  sure,  were  invariably  true  to  it. 
However  correct  their  ideas  were  they  could  not  help 
giving  them  an  individual  interpretation.  This  makes 
it  necessary  to  distinguish  between  what  a  sculptor 
meant  to  do  and  what  he  actually  did.  Just  here 
the  archaeological  treatment  of  ancient  art  has  erred 
most.  The  detail  which  in  the  process  of  creation 
has  detached  itself  from  the  whole  has  been  considered 
by  many  to  be  the  expression  of  a  new  conception. 
This  is  a  mistake.  The  Athenian  tendencies  to  over- 
elaboration,  for  instance,  and  the  Polykleitean  neglect 
of  the  nobler  side  of  human  nature,  are  only  periodic 
aberrations.  They  are  entirely  outside  the  even  spirit 
of  Greek  sculpture,  and  find  their  explanation  in  the 
passing  likes  and  dislikes  of  a  few  men. 

Such  instances  of  undue  attention  paid  to  one  detail 
or  another  had,  of  course,  to  leave  their  impress  upon 
subsequent  art  manifestations.  Their  influence,  how- 
ever, would  have  been  vastly  greater  if  they  had  been 


FUNDAMENTAL  CONSIDERATIONS  7 

the  intentional  introduction  of  a  new  conception,  and 
not  merely  the  accidental  exaggeration  of  a  minor  part. 
It  is  well  worth  noticing  that  the  overgreat  delicacy  of 
early  Athenian  sculpture  is  followed  by  Pheidias;  and 
that  Polykleitos,  with  his  disregard  of  man's  noblest 
side,  is  immediately  superseded  by  Praxiteles  and  Sko- 
pas,  who  were  the  greatest  masters  in  the  expression 
of  the  passions  of  the  human  soul. 


CHAPTER  II 


GREEK  SCULPTURE  IN  ITS  RELATION  TO 
NATURE:  THE  MENTAL  IMAGE 

Greek  sculpture  exhibits  a  quality  which  is  strongly 
opposed  to  what  is  termed  realism.  Since  realism  and 
idealism  are  opposites,  Greek  sculpture  often  has  been 
called  idealistic.  The  realist  in  art  endeavors  to  repre- 
sent nature  as  she  really  is  with  all  her  accidentals  and 
incidentals,  and  is  often  so  far  carried  away  by  these 
minor  quantities  that  he  is  unable  to  catch  the  true, 
though  fleeting,  essence  of  the  object.  The  idealist 
consciously  disregards  the  apparent  details,  spending 
his  efforts  in  emphasizing  the  idea  which  he  finds 
embodied  in  the  object  selected  for  representation. 
Both  men  work  from  the  visible  objects  of  nature, 
which  they  try  to  reproduce.    Not  so  the  Greeks. 

Every  one  has  what  may  be  styled  a  mental  image 
or  a  memory  picture  of  his  familiar  surroundings.  To 
represent  these  mental  images  accurately  was  the  aim 
of  the  Greeks.  They  endeavored  to  make  real  their 
ideas,  and  are  therefore  rather  realists  than  idealists. 
But  since  both  these  terms  at  the  present  time  are 
applied  to  the  definite  classes  of  people  mentioned 
above,  it  is  confusing  to  use  them  in  speaking  of  the 

8 


SOPHOKLES 

(Lateran) 


IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  NATURE  9 

ancient  Greeks.  This  is  also  true  of  the  modern  use 
of  the  word  "  elimination,"  by  which  most  writers  mean 
"  an  intentional  omission  or  suppression  of  details." 
The  absence  of  unnecessary  details  in  Greek  sculpture 
was  not  due  to  conscious  eclecticism,  but  to  the  fact 
that  such  details  have  no  place  in  one's  mental  images. 

The  mental  image  or  the  memory  picture  is  the 
impression  left  upon  one  after  seeing  a  great  many 
objects  of  the  same  type.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  the 
Platonic  idea,  purified  and  freed  from  all  individual 
or  accidental  ingredients.  At  times  it  may  even  be 
strangely  at  variance  with  a  particular  object  of  the 
class  to  which  it  belongs.  The  human  memory  is  a 
peculiarly  uncertain  faculty,  and  in  its  primitive  stage, 
though  quick  to  respond,  very  inaccurate.  The  shape 
of  a  square  sheet  of  paper  is  readily  remembered,  and 
so  is  a  pencil  or  any  other  uniform  and  simple  object. 
Our  mental  image  of  an  animal  is  less  distinct.  We 
remember  the  head  and  the  legs  and  the  tail,  and  per- 
haps the  body,  if  it  is  a  prominent  part,  as  in  the  case 
of  a  dog  or  a  horse ;  but  all  these  parts  are  unconnected^ 
and  if  a  child,  for  instance,  is  asked  to  draw  a  man,  he 
will  remember  the  head  and  arms  and  legs,  but  will 
not  know  how  to  join  them  together.  His  mental 
image  of  the  man  as  a  whole  is  too  indistinct  to  guide 
him.  In  nature  the  several  parts  are  united  in  easily 
flowing  curves  —  they  grow  together ;  in  our  mental 
image  they  are  simply  put  together. 


lO 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


This  process  of  putting  together  is  entirely  uncon- 
scious, causing  us  little  concern  unless  we  are  compelled 
to  reproduce  it  on  paper  or  in  stone,  and  are  forced  to 
compare  it  with  the  actual  objects  about  us.  Professor 
Lowy  cites  a  remarkable  instance  of  a  perverse  mental 
image  on  the  part  of  the  crude  Brazilian  draughtsmen, 
who  were  much  impressed  by  the  mustaches  of  the 
Europeans  and  represented  them  as  growing  on  the 
foreheads  instead  of  on  the  upper  lips.  In  the  mental 
image  the  upper  lip  is  very  unimportant,  while  the 
broad  stretch  of  the  forehead  fills  a  more  prominent 
place.  It  is  on  the  forehead,  therefore,  that  the  mous- 
tache is  introduced,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  this  is 
contrary  to  nature  and  could  daily  be  proved  wrong 
by  even  the  hastiest  glance. 

It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  go  so  far  afield  in 
order  to  realize  the  peculiar  pranks  of  mental  images. 
Let  the  reader  call  to  mind  pictures  of  horses,  dogs, 
flies,  lizards,  and  the  like.  Horses  and  dogs  he  will 
see  in  profile;  lizards  and  flies  from  above.  If  he  is 
shown  one  of  the  recent  posters  of  racing  horses  from 
above,  such  a  view  does  not  at  once  agree  with  his 
memory  image,  and  requires  a  special  mental  effort  to 
be  understood,  however  accurate  it  may  be.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  picture  of  a  fly  in  profile  or,  perhaps,  a 
dog  seen  from  the  front.  Neither  of  these  pictures 
immediately  conveys  to  him  the  idea  of  the  animal 
represented,  though   it  probably  is  more   like  this 


IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  NATURE 


II 


particular  view  of  the  animal  than  his  own  distorted 
mental  image. 

On  general  principles  our  mental  images  of  familiar 
objects  ought  to  be  the  more  distinct.  This  is,  how- 
ever, not  always  the  case.  When  we  see  an  animal 
for  the  first  time  we  carefully  observe  it;  with  every 
succeeding  time  we  give  it  less  attention,  and  by  and 
by  the  most  cursory  glance  satisfies  us.  The  ultimate 
result  of  such  a  procedure  is  that  we  carry  away  with 
us  a  mental  image  the  haziness  of  which  in  details 
corresponds  to  the  lack  of  attention  which  we  finally 
bestow  upon  it.  Expressed  in  drawing  it  will  be  much 
further  removed  from  the  actual  semblance  of  the  ani- 
mal than  another  mental  image  which  is  penned  before 
the  creature  has  become  too  familiar  to  cease  to  be 
the  interesting  object  of  curiosity.  When  a  primitive 
draughtsman  sketches  a  wild  beast  he  is  apt  to  show 
much  more  individuality  than  when  he  is  representing 
his  own  kind.  The  features  of  the  Egyptians  on  old 
Egyptian  wall  paintings  and  reliefs  are  distinctly  less 
characteristic  than  those  of  the  Keftiu,  or  Oriental 
captives,  which  often  are  introduced,  and  both  fall 
far  short  of  the  excellence  with  which  animals  are 
represented. 

No  mental  image  is  ever  reproduced  on  paper  or 
stone  as  it  actually  is.  The  very  attention  which  is 
bestowed  on  it  in  the  endeavor  to  realize  it,  robs  it  of 
much  of  its  spontaneity;  and  since  it  is  the  result 


12 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


of  unconsciously  observing  a  great  many  objects,  it 
will,  when  consciously  expressed,  exhibit  many  gaps 
and  hazy  lines  of  connection,  which  the  artist  must 
fill  as  best  he  can. 

Another  reason  why  all  mental  images  cannot  be  accu- 
rately reproduced  is  that  the  laws  of  the  physical  uni- 
verse to  which  the  objects  belong  have  no  binding  force 
in  the  psychical  world  of  mental  images.  Lowy  cites  as 
an  instance  of  this  the  fact  that  the  memory  picture  of  a 
man  in  profile  may,  and  with  primitive  people  does,  con- 
tain two  eyes.  You  cannot,  however,  draw  them  both  in 
your  picture  because  of  the  limitation  of  space,  and  are 
therefore  compelled  to  deviate  from  your  mental  image. 

Such  instances  compel  the  primitive  artist  to  turn  to 
nature  for  information.  This  he  can  do  in  two  ways, 
—  either  by  observing  more  thoughtfully,  and  thus  gain- 
ing a  clearer  mental  image,  or  by  actually  copying  the 
missing  parts  from  a  model.  The  latter  way,  natural 
though  it  may  seem,  is  not  so  readily  resorted  to  as  the 
first,  probably  because  it  would  introduce  an  entirely 
different  quality  into  the  work,  —  the  individual  instead 
of  the  type.  It  is,  moreover,  a  well-known  fact  that 
children  gifted  with  the  pencil  and  clever  at  drawing 
are  often  utterly  unable  to  make  an  intelligible  copy 
of  a  definite  model. 

The  artist  under  primitive  conditions  is  the  exponent 
of  the  general  tendencies  of  his  people.    When  he  for 


IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  NATURE  1 3 

the  first  time  expresses  his  and  their  mental  images, 
such  copies  serve  a  definite  end  in  the  development  of 
the  race.  If  the  race  is  sincere  and  imbued  with  a 
craving  after  truth,  the  accuracy  or  inaccuracy  of  these 
embodied  mental  images  will  be  checked  by  more  or 
less  unconscious  comparisons  with  all  the  many  objects 
of  nature,  and  the  result  will  be  a  readjustment  of 
the  first  naturally  incorrect  mental  images.  The  new 
ideas  will  again  be  expressed  by  some  subsequent 
artist,  and  the  process  of  readjustment  and  renewed 
expression  be  repeated.  This  was  the  case  with  the 
Greeks.  The  period  of  historic  Greek  art  was  short, 
but  it  was  long  enough  to  enable  the  Greeks  to  advance 
to  the  point  where  mental  images  of  objects  suitable 
for  representation  in  sculpture  are  so  delicate  that 
expressing  them  is  almost  identical  with  copying 
nature. 

The  development  in  Greece  was  diametrically  opposed 
to  what  took  place,  for  instance,  in  Egypt  or  Assyria. 
The  earliest  art  expressions  in  these  countries  were 
far  ahead  of  the  crude  attempts  of  the  Greeks.  But 
instead  of  using  them  for  the  clarification  of  memory 
conceptions  the  mental  lethargy  of  the  people  rested 
satisfied  with  them,  and  subsequent  generations  were 
content  to  look  upon  them  as  binding  prototypes. 
Egyptian  or  Assyrian  statuary  in  later  times  can  never 
again  be  said  to  be  the  genuine  expression  of  the  ideals 
of  the  people.    We  may  take  a  Greek  statue  and  learn 


14 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


from  it  the  moral  and  intellectual  attitude  of  the  Greeks 
at  the  time  when  it  was  made;  but  we  cannot  do  the 
same  with  an  Egyptian  or  Assyrian  relief, — at  least 
not  to  the  same  extent.  This  is  also  largely  true  of 
sculpture  in  modern  times.  The  modern  artist  has 
the  entire  wealth  of  ancient  and  Renaissance  sculpture 
at  his  disposal,  and  is  often  willing  to  copy  or  adapt 
their  types,  making  only  such  alterations  as  the  tastes 
of  his  own  time  imperatively  demand.  American  sculp- 
ture, for  instance,  beautiful  as  it  is  in  some  of  its  phases, 
shows  a  rapid  and  most  remarkable  increase  in  skill,  but 
can  hardly  be  said  to  reveal  the  gradual  development 
of  the  ideals  of  the  people. 

It  has  so  far  been  tacitly  assumed  that  the  skill  of 
the  artist  at  every  given  time  enabled  him  accurately 
to  present  his  mental  images.  This  was,  however,  not 
always  the  case  with  the  Greeks.  Their  unusually  spir- 
ited mental  development  was  such  that  the  technical 
skill  of  the  artists  could  not  keep  step  with  it,  and 
until  toward  the  autumn  days  of  their  art  generally 
fell  short  of  their  ideals.  Hardly  a  problem  was  solved 
before  the  growing  accuracy  of  the  mental  images 
presented  another;  and  when  all  the  problems  of  the 
limited  range  of  subjects  which  at  first  were  represented 
had  found  their  solution,  new  subjects  were  urgently 
clamoring  for  representation.  The  end  of  Greek  sculp- 
ture may  be  said  to  have  come  when  all  the  technical 
problems  had  been  solved  and  the  mental  degeneration 


IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  NATURE  1 5 

of  the  race,  unwilling  to  accept  the  moral  and  religious 
views  of  the  new  era,  had  no  more  worthy  ideas  to  suggest. 

Defect  and  excellence  in  skill,  however,  have  another 
influence  which  cannot  be  overlooked.  Since  mental 
images  are  the  involuntary  results  of  seeing  a  great 
many  objects  and  seeing  them  frequently,  they  are 
influenced  as  well  by  the  numerous  statues  of  men  as 
by  men  themselves.  This  is  especially  true  of  modern 
times,  when  the  Puritanic  disregard  for  the  body  has 
brought  about  a  state  of  affairs  where  it  is  difficult  to 
form  intelligent  ideas  of  the  human  body  except  from 
statues  and  pictures.  Nobility  of  mind  and  of  body 
often  are  closely  connected,  and  since  the  noblest  people 
are  hardly  to  be  found  among  the  professional  models, 
the  noblest  bodies  are  rarely  represented.  Some  of 
the  coarseness  of  the  nude  in  modern  art  is  perhaps 
explained  by  the  fact  that  the  artists  are  obliged  to 
copy  accurately  the  best  models  obtainable,  instead  of 
being  able  to  form  by  observation  of  the  noblest  bodies 
their  own  refined  mental  images. 

The  effect  of  statues  upon  the  mental  images  of  the 
Greeks  was  probably  less  powerful  than  it  is  with  us, 
because  the  Greeks  were  more  familiar  with  nude 
bodies,  both  male  and  female.  They  had,  however, 
infinitely  more  statues,  and  could  not  possibly  remain 
entirely  uninfluenced  by  them. 

An  artist,  therefore,  in  the  first  place  expresses  the 
ideas  of  his  people,  and  then  by  so  doing  influences 


i6 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


them  either  for  the  better  or  the  worse.  The  next 
artist  who  endeavors  to  express  the  mental  images  of 
his  contemporaries  finds  them  no  longer  the  primitive 
product  of  crude  observation  of  nature,  but  a  combi- 
nation of  the  original  conceptions  and  some  new  ideas. 
These  new  ideas  are  due  partly  to  the  impressions 
received  from  the  first  artist's  work  and  partly  to  the 
general  change  that  has  taken  place  in  the  character 
of  the  people,  owing  to  their  moral  and  intellectual 
advance. 

The  rapid  growth  of  Greek  sculpture  is  undeniable; 
the  primary  aim  of  the  artists,  however,  seems  to  have 
been  always  the  same,  —  to  represent  well  the  clearest 
mental  images  of  the  time. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  APPEAL  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

It  is  admitted  even  by  materialists  of  the  most 
extreme  type  that  a  world  of  bare  facts  and  dry  bones 
is  uninteresting  and  needless.  Thoughts  that  come 
with  the  stillness  of  the  evening  are  realities,  and  few 
are  the  men  who  in  the  majestic  solitude  of  a  forest  are 
not  impressed  by  greater  forces  than  their  eyes  can  see. 
Such  observations  are  as  true  of  one's  most  familiar  sur- 
roundings as  of  the  rare  opportunities  in  every  one's  life. 
Our  friends  mean  more  to  us  than  the  pleasure  we  get 
from  looking  at  them.  In  fact,  we  rarely  examine  them 
accurately.  One  glance  suffices  to  tell  us  they  are  com- 
ing, and  after  this  first  announcement  through  the 
faculty  of  eyesight,  our  enjoyment  is  almost  entirely 
psychical.  This  does  not,  however,  exclude  the  pos- 
sibility of  taking  also  a  distinctly  physical  pleasure 
in  them,  provided  the  lines  of  their  bodies  are  such 
that  our  eyes  glide  easily  and  rhythmically  over  them. 
What  is  true  of  our  friends  is  true  also  of  less  well- 
known  persons  and  even  of  strangers.  Seeing  them 
means  a  great  deal  more  than  seeing  a  table  or  a 
chair,  for  these  latter  objects  generally  suggest  noth- 
ing beyond  what  is  actually  seen.    No  thoughtful  man^ 

17, 


i8 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


however,  can  see  a  person  without  coming  —  to  some 
extent  —  in  contact  with  his  personality. 

A  picture  also,  which  may  call  for  admiration  on 
account  of  its  perfect  technique,  is  valuable  as  a  work 
of  art  only  if  it  conveys  ideas.  The  outer  form  of  an 
object  appeals  to  the  vision,  its  spiritual  essence  to  the 
imagination.  The  vision  is  a  purely  physical  faculty; 
the  imagination,  a  noble  acquisition  of  the  human  race. 
The  enjoyment  through  the  one  is  not,  however,  entirely 
independent  of  the  other,  for  the  intricacies  of  human 
nature  are  such  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  where  the 
one  begins  and  the  other  ends.  The  artist,  therefore, 
must  consider  both,  and  since  his  appeal  to  the  imagi- 
nation is  made  through  the  senses,  he  must  studiously 
avoid  all  friction  with  them.  This  is  perfectly  in  keep- 
ing with  the  experience  of  great  poets,  who  cannot 
successfully  transmit  their  thoughts  unless  they  refrain 
from  offending  the  ear  by  harsh  cadences. 

That  the  Greek  sculptors  worked  along  these  lines 
is  clear,  for  many  peculiarities  of  their  art  find  their 
explanation  only  if  this  is  understood.  The  Greeks 
always  had  in  mind  the  nobler  side  of  man,  but  they 
were  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  an  impression  upon 
it  is  impossible  unless  the  physical  side  of  human 
nature  is  also  gratified.  The  work  of  art  fails  to  carry 
its  message  if  it  is  not  pleasant  to  look  at.  To  credit 
the  ancients,  on  the  other  hand,  with  a  logical  interpre- 
tation and  knowledge  of  all  the  principles  which  they 


THE  APPEAL  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE  19 

followed,  is  a  mistake;  the  most  refined  people  do  the 
proper  things  unconsciously. 

Modern  artistic  standards  are  not  uniform;  the  indi- 
viduality of  the  spectator  is  generally  lost  sight  of  in 
the  overpowering  individuality  of  the  artist,  and  the 
complexity  of  modern  times  has  so  far  forced  the  claims 
of  simple  human  nature  to  the  background  that  they 
are  almost  forgotten.  In  antiquity  these  claims  were 
of  great  importance.  Before  attempting,  therefore,  to 
judge  of  the  allowances  made  to  them  by  the  Greeks, 
it  is  necessary  to  see  what  they  are. 

After  the  unveiling  of  commemorative  statues  it  is 
not  unusual  to  hear  comments  to  the  effect  that  the 
sculptor  had  well  caught  the  characteristic  pose  of  the 
dead,  and  that  the  statue  looked  just  like  him  whom 
it  was  intended  to  commemorate;  one  could  believe 
one  saw  the  man  himself;  in  short,  the  statue  was  a 
great  work  of  art.  The  statue  may  indeed  be  a  great 
work  of  art,  but  not  for  the  reasons  mentioned;  for 
most  of  them  are  applicable  with  equal  force  to  any 
fine  figure  in  the  Eden  Musee,  where  wax  policemen 
guard  the  entrance  and  waxen  smiths  are  working  at 
the  bellows. 

Few  people,  however,  would  be  willing  to  call  such 
figures  great  works  of  art.  The  average  wax  figure, 
while  it  accurately  reproduces  the  material  body  of  a 
person,  pays  no  attention  to  his  personality.  It  is 
meant  for  a  moment's  deception  of  the  vision,  and 


20 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


makes  no  appeal  to  a  man's  higher  faculties ;  —  as  a 
suggestive  work  of  art  it  is  unsatisfactory.  If  a  man 
wants  a  bodily  memento  of  his  friend,  he  places  a  statue 
or  a  bust  of  him  in  his  study,  and  not  a  wax  figure.  A 
good  portrait  is  more  satisfactory  than  a  photograph, 
though  the  latter  is  generally  a  more  accurate  copy  of 
the  material  body.  Neither  the  photograph  nor  the 
wax  figure  transmits  the  spirit  of  life  which  primarily 
represents  the  man.  In  art  it  is  the  man,  with  the 
multiplicity  of  his  thoughts,  who  is  wanted,  and  not 
the  mechanical  reproduction  of  the  lines  of  his  body. 
The  sculptor  works  in  the  tangible  material  of  stone  or 
bronze,  and  the  questions  arise.  Has  he  any  means  at 
his  disposal  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  art?  and 
What  are  these  means  .-^ 

The  first  question  may  unhesitatingly  be  answered  in 
the  affirmative;  for  the  Greek  sculptors,  and  some  great 
men  after  them,  have  demonstrated  the  existence  of  such 
means.  The  second  question  is  less  readily  answered, 
because  the  means  are  not  only  different  for  different 
subjects,  and  different  according  to  the  several  stand- 
ards of  the  race,  but  also  so  subtle  that  they  can  hardly 
be  expressed  in  words  —  they  must  be  felt.  It  is  there- 
fore not  only  impossible,  but  also  perhaps  needlessly 
presumptuous,  to  enumerate  all  the  means  at  the  dis- 
posal of  the  sculptor, — for  who  would  dare  to  prescribe 
to  the  genius  of  a  great  artist?  It  may  be,  however, 
profitable  to  point  out  some  of  the  things  which  the 


THE  APPEAL  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE 


21 


Greeks  avoided  in  their  endeavor  to  meet  the  claims 
of  an  art  that  could  appeal  to  human  nature. 

The  practically  complete  absence  of  subjects  taken 
from  inanimate  nature  is  one  of  the  most  noticeable 
traits  of  Greek  sculpture.  The  precept  therefore  has 
been  laid  down  that  sculpture  ought  to  represent  noth- 
ing but  living  things.  Says  Mr.  Ruskin :  "  You  must 
carve  nothing  but  what  has  life.  '  Why  ? '  you  probably 
feel  instantly  inclined  to  ask  me.  '  Must  we  refuse  every 
pleasant  accessory  and  picturesque  detail  and  petrify 
nothing  but  living  creatures  ? '  Even  so :  I  would  not 
assert  it  on  my  own  authority.  It  is  the  Greeks  who 
say  it,  but  whatever  they  say  of  sculpture,  be  assured,  is 
true ! "  And  there  he  and  most  teachers  of  art  let  the 
matter  rest.  But  this  is  neither  wise  nor  just.  Unless 
a  man  sees  the  correctness  of  a  precept  he  ought  not 
to  accept  it,  not  even  on  the  authority  of  the  Greeks. 
Fortunately  for  us  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  why  the 
Greeks  avoided  inanimate  matter  in  sculpture,  for  the 
principle  which  guided  them  in  this  respect  is  at 
the  very  foundation  of  their  art. 

Since  a  work  of  art  may  be  considered  to  be  non- 
existent unless  it  is  beheld  by  human  eyes,  the  danger 
is  ever  present  of  having  the  spectator's  consciousness 
centered  in  his  purely  physical  faculty  of  sight.  In 
order  to  avoid  this  the  Greeks  made  use  of  certain 
devices  or  "  conventions,"  by  means  of  which  the  claims 
of  the  vision  were  satisfied  without  curtailing  the  scope 


22 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


which  was  given  to  the  higher  human  faculties  of 
thought  or  imagination.  This  was  done  by  repro- 
ducing rather  the  mental  image  of  the  object  than  the 
object  itself.  Care  was  taken,  however,  that  the  repro- 
duction should  be  neither  so  completely  like  the  origi- 
nal as  to  challenge,  after  the  first  momentary  deception, 
immediate  comparison,  nor  so  unlike  the  original  that 
it  should  fail  to  bear  strong  points  of  resemblance;  for 
in  both  these  cases  the  faculty  of  eyesight  would  have 
become  disproportionally  prominent. 

The  sculptor,  it  may  be  remarked  by  way  of  digres- 
sion, must  observe  these  principles  much  more  carefully 
than  the  painter,  because  painting,  which  is  restricted  to 
two  dimensions,  —  whereas  all  objects  of  nature  have 
three,  —  does  not  run  the  danger  of  deceiving  our 
vision.  Sculpture  in  the  round,  however,  which  can 
exactly  represent  not  only  the  appearance  but  also  the 
bodily  form  of  the  object,  may  easily  make  such  a 
forceful  appeal  to  the  vision  pure  and  simple  that  it 
fails  of  attaining  its  desired  end. 

In  representing  inanimate  objects  in  corporeal  form 
the  sculptor  meets  with  practically  insurmountable 
obstacles ;  for,  generally  speaking,  such  objects  offer  no 
suggestions  of  thoughts  able  to  appeal  to  one's  nobler 
self;  it  is  therefore  their  form  pure  and  simple  which 
is  of  importance.  But  since  they  are  represented  in  full 
bodily  form,  even  the  least  deviation  from  their  actual 
appearance  is  apt  to  be  noticed  —  here  there  is  no  work 


THE  APPEAL  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE  23 

of  art  because  there  is  no  appeal  to  the  imagination. 
The  very  excellence,  on  the  other  hand,  of  a  truthful 
representation  challenges  the  vision  to  make  a  com- 
parison—  again  there  is  no  work  of  art.  Only  when 
living  people  are  represented  does  the  indicated  charac- 
ter, not  the  outer  form,  attract  attention.  The  appeal 
is  not  to  the  vision,  but  through  the  vision  to  the 
higher  mental  faculties;  for  we  are,  consciously  or  not, 
in  the  habit  of  reading  character  in  human  bodies; 
and  this  of  course  cannot  be  done  by  the  mere  exer- 
cise of  vision.  In  viewing,  therefore,  the  statue  of  a 
man  the  faculty  of  eyesight  is  less  consciously  active 
than  that  of  imagination.  The  best  work  of  art  in 
fact  ceases  to  be  an  interesting  object  of  sight  alto- 
gether, making  its  appeal  immediately  to  the  imagina- 
tion. Artists  at  all  times  have  striven  to  accomplish 
this.  The  realistic  reproduction  of  nature  never  does 
it;  neatness  of  workmanship  alone  is  useless  in  this 
respect.  Only  those  workers  achieve  it  who,  like  the 
Greeks,  pay  full  attention  to  the  peculiar  needs  of 
physical  human  nature.  In  sculpture  this  is  impossible 
unless  living  creatures  are  represented. 

The  idea  of  life  may  be  enhanced  by  means  of  con- 
trast. The  ancients,  therefore,  admitted  lifeless  things 
into  their  compositions  as  accessories.  The  principles 
which  ought  to  govern  the  use  of  such  secondary  sub- 
jects are  well  set  forth  by  Mr.  Ruskin,  who  says :  "  Noth- 
ing must  be  represented  in  sculpture  external  to  any 


24 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


living  form  which  does  not  help  to  enforce  or  illustrate 
the  conception  of  life.  Both  dress  and  armour  may 
be  made  to  do  this  and  are  constantly  so  used  by  the 
greatest,  but,"  Mr.  Ruskin  adds,  using  an  instance  of 
modern  sculpture,  though  his  inferences  are  equally  true 
of  Greek  art,  "note  that  even  Joan  of  Arc's  armour 
must  be  only  sculptured,  if  she  has  it  07i ;  it  is  not  the 
honourableness  or  beauty  of  it  that  are  enough,  but 
the  direct  bearing  of  it  by  her  body.  You  might  be 
deeply,  even  pathetically,  interested  by  looking  at  a 
good  knight's  dented  coat  of  mail,  left  in  his  desolate 
hall.  May  you  sculpture  it  where  it  hangs?  No;  the 
helmet  for  his  pillow,  if  you  will  —  no  more." 

But  how  may  such  a  helmet  be  sculptured,  or  how 
must  the  armor  be  treated  if  the  hero  has  it  on.?  Shall 
we  represent  it  as  accurately  as  possible  .f*  Suppose  we 
do,  and  suppose  the  statue  we  make  is  of  bronze ;  then 
there  is  absolutely  no  reason  why  the  result  should  not 
be  a  second  armor  so  much  like  the  one  the  hero  wore 
that  our  vision  is  deceived  into  seeing  the  armor  itself. 
But  how  about  the  person  that  wore  W.  His  bronze 
statue  reproduces  the  sculptor's  mental  image  of  his 
personality  —  the  man  it  cannot  be;  the  quality  of  the 
accessory  is  different  from  that  of  the  figure  itself. 
The  one  is  what  it  appears  to  be;  the  other  cannot 
even  appear  to  be  what  it  is  meant  to  represent,  because 
the  very  contrast  between  the  real  armor  and  the  life- 
less form  of  the  man  awakens  the  thought  that  he  is 


THE  APPEAL  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE  25 

not  real.  "  But,"  an  objector  exclaims,  "  if  the  armor 
ought  not  to  be  made  just  like  its  prototype,  the 
sculptor  surely  ought  not  to  carve  it  altogether  unlike 
it."  Certainly  not;  for  if  he  did,  the  very  fact  that  it 
was  all  too  little  like  a  coat  of  mail  would  at  once 
attract  the  spectator's  attention,  and  his  vision,  always 
on  the  alert,  would  be  so  prominently  called  into  play 
that  the  true  purpose  of  the  work  of  art  would  be 
lost. 

How  fully  the  Greeks  appreciated  these  facts  is  per- 
haps best  seen  in  the  draperies  of  their  statues,  which 
are  always  true  enough  to  appear  real  without  ever 
being  correct.  Nobody  has  yet  been  able  to  demon- 
strate from  the  statues  the  accuracy  of  his  theories  on 
ancient  costumes  gleaned  from  the  study  of  literary 
descriptions  and  vase  paintings.  The  painters  often 
attained  to  a  fairly  accurate  rendering  of  the  gar- 
ment, the  sculptors  never.  They  not  only  took  great 
liberties  with  those  pieces  of  the  drapery  which  they 
represented,  but  even  omitted  entire  garments.  The 
Sophokles,  opposite  page  8,  in  the  Lateran  Museum, 
for  instance,  is  represented  as  wearing  only  the  outer 
costume  or  overcoat,  while  it  is  well  known  from  litera- 
ture that  gentlemen  never  appeared  in  public  in  quite  so 
scanty  an  attire.  The  warriors  from  the  pediments  of 
the  temple  of  Aigina,  PI.  XII,  Fig.  i,  with  one  or  two 
exceptions,  are  completely  nude;  they  have  gone  into 
battle  with  the  helmets  on  their  heads  and  the  shields 


26 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


on  their  arms,  but  without  one  single  piece  of  drapery. 
The  Greeks  never  entered  battle  in  this  way,  either  at 
the  time  the  marbles  were  carved,  or  at  the  time  which 
the  statues  commemorate,  or  at  any  other  time.  Such 
a  partial  or  complete  omission  of  the  drapery  can  hardly 
be  explained  as  the  unconscious  reproduction  of  a 
mental  image;  while  the  actual  treatment  of  the  dra- 
pery, as  it  appears,  for  instance,  in  the  Nike  of  Paionios 
or  on  the  Parthenon  frieze,  probably  is  more  or  less 
unconscious.  Many  modern  writers  use  the  word  "elim- 
ination "  in  speaking  of  Greek  drapery;  but  this  is  a 
mistake,  because  elimination  implies  the  studied  omis- 
sion of  details,  and  cannot,  therefore,  account  either 
for  the  omission  of  entire  garments  or  the  unconscious 
treatment  of  actually  sculptured  costumes. 

The  eclecticism  in  Greek  drapery  may  be  called  one 
of  the  devices  or  "conventions"  of  Greek  sculpture, 
and  may  serve  to  prove  that  such  conventions  do  not  hold 
good  for  all  times.  When  Greenough  carved  his  large 
statue  of  George  Washington  in  the  national  Capitol, 
he  omitted  the  drapery  on  the  upper  part  of  the  body, 
obviously  with  the  intention  of  drawing  the  attention  of 
the  spectator  away  from  the  dress  to  the  person  who 
wore  it.  He  clearly  followed  in  this  respect  the  prac- 
tices of  the  Greeks,  and  more  especially  the  pattern  set 
by  Pheidias  in  his  colossal  Zeus  in  Olympia.  The 
Greeks  might  omit  the  drapery  with  impunity,  for  they 
were  as  a  race  intensely  fond  of  the  nude.  Greenough, 


THE  APPEAL  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE  27 

imitating  them  in  the  face  of  very  pronounced  racial 
and  reHgious  prejudices  against  the  nude,  committed  the 
unpardonable  mistake  of  copying  not  the  spirit  of  a  past 
art  but  its  accidental  expression.  Instead  of  accom- 
plishing his  end,  therefore,  by  omitting  the  drapery,  he 
achieved  the  opposite,  for  the  drapery  is  "conspicuous 
by  its  very  absence." 

The  same  considerate  spirit  which  prompted  the 
Greeks  to  deviate  from  nature  in  representing  drapery 
shows  itself  also  in  their  treatment  of  rocks,  trees,  and 
the  like  in  marble  reliefs.  Marble  is  rock,  and  nothing 
is  easier  than  to  reproduce  the  rock  accurately,  so  that 
the  result  is  not  only  a  picture  of  the  rock,  but  really 
a  second  piece  of  rock.  If  this  had  been  done,  for 
instance,  on  the  marble  base  from  Mantineia,  PL  I, 
Fig.  I,  the  contrast  between  the  actual  rock  and  the 
representation  of  Apollo  sitting  on  it  would  have 
deprived  the  god  of  all  semblance  of  reality.  Similar 
observations  may  be  made  with  the  trees  on  the  frieze 
of  the  Athena-Nike  temple  in  Athens,  or  the  stepping- 
stones  on  the  frieze  of  the  Parthenon. 

These  instances  suffice  to  show  the  general  attitude 
of  the  Greek  sculptors  toward  the  public.  The  public 
—  and  of  course  the  artists  belong  to  the  public  —  are 
not  automatic  checking  machines,  but  human  beings, 
with  all  the  complexities  and  inconsistencies  that  the 
term  implies.  They  are  entitled  to  consideration,  and 
at  the  hands  of  the  ancient  artists  they  received  it. 


28 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


What  is  more,  the  Greeks  gave  it  gladly;  for  to  make 
allowances  for  the  frailties  of  human  nature  was  to  them 
not  an  irksome  duty  but  a  welcome  privilege,  ena- 
bling them  to  introduce  into  their  art  a  human  element 
of  great  variety  and  of  unexhausted  possibilities. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  ARTIST  AND  HIS  PUBLIC 

The  personal  influence  of  the  Greek  artists  upon 
their  communities  was  great,  although  it  is  not  often 
touched  upon  in  ancient  literature.  This  influence  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  artists  felt  themselves  one  with 
the  public,  and  rarely,  if  ever,  believed  they  were  set 
off  as  a  class  by  themselves,  distinct  from  the  laymen. 
Such  a  view,  however,  has  often  since  prevailed.  When 
Michelangelo  carved  the  tombs  of  the  Medicis  and  there 
gave  a  mystic  expression  to  his  ideas  of  liberty,  these 
thoughts  were  to  him  exclusively  his  own,  —  too  high, 
too  good  to  be  shared  by  the  common  populace,  —  and 
yet  they  were  the  very  thoughts  in  the  thinking  of 
which  this  populace  had  begun  to  delight.  When  the 
genius  of  an  artist  is  grappling  with  the  unexpressed 
phantoms  of  new  ideas,  and  after  patient  meditation 
realizes  them  on  canvas  or  in  stone  to  the  extent  of 
transforming  the  haziness  of  the  notions  into  appalling 
clearness,  he  may  indeed  be  forgiven  if  he  takes  a  too 
exalted  view  of  his  achievements  and  believes  that  he 
and  his  fellow-artists  are  of  nobler  timbre  than  the 
general  public. 

29 


30 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Such  a  view,  however,  is  erroneous  and  contrary  to 
certain  observations  which  it  is  in  the  power  of  every 
one  to  make.  It  is,  for  instance,  not  of  rare  occurrence 
to  have  two  men,  under  widely  different  conditions 
and  far  apart,  suddenly  find  the  expression  of  an  appar- 
ently original  thought  at  exactly  the  same  time ;  and  It 
happens  even  oftener  that  several  people  are  simulta- 
neously engaged  in  the  solution  of  identical  problems. 
The  thought,  then,  one  might  say,  is  the  active  force, 
urgently  clamoring  for  expression;  the  artists — poet, 
sculptor,  painter,  sage — are  willing  tools.  The  thoughts 
themselves,  however,  are  the  products  of  the  intellectual 
life  both  past  and  present,  and  are  the  common  inherit- 
ance of  the  artists  and  the  laymen.  It  is  therefore  a 
mistake  to  believe  that  only  the  man  who  has  the  skill 
of  expression  is  able  to  enter  upon  this  inheritance;  on 
the  contrary  he  is  often  the  very  one  who  by  his  neg- 
lect of  an  education  and  his  thoughtless  application  to 
manual  dexterity  forfeits  his  birthright. 

The  world  of  thoughts  with  which  we  come  in  con- 
tact to-day  is  vastly  greater  than  at  any  other  time.  In 
antiquity  an  Aristotle  could  without  presumption  claim 
to  be  master  of  everything,  and  even  in  the  sixteenth 
century  of  our  era  Scaliger  could  enjoy  a  similar  repu- 
tation; to-day  this  is  out  of  the  question  for  any  one. 
The  thoughts  which  are  the  property  of  the  community 
have  multiplied  at  such  a  tremendous  rate  that  no  one 
lifetime  suffices  to  grapple  with  all.    Together  with  this 


Nike  of  Samothrace 
(Louvre) 


THE  ARTIST  AND  HIS  PUBLIC  3 1 

increase  in  the  world  of  thoughts,  the  power  seems  to 
have  been  developed  in  the  individual  to  master  them 
even  without  their  finding  visible  or  audible  expres- 
sions. Mr.  Ruskin  once  said  he  could  well  imagine 
the  time  when  the  human  race  would  have  so  far 
advanced  that  it  could  realize  the  noble  thoughts,  now 
expressed  in  art,  without  the  help  of  art.  Humanity 
has  already  made  a  tremendous  step  in  this  direction. 
Religious  thoughts  in  many  denominations  are  inde- 
pendent of  pictorial  aids.  The  Roman  Church  still 
clings  to  them,  and  so  does  the  Lutheran,  and  to  some 
extent  the  Protestant  Episcopal;  but  those  denomina- 
tions which  owe  their  origin  to  more  recent  centuries 
have  entirely  discarded  them.  No  instances  taken  from 
religious  practices  are  altogether  fair,  because  too  much 
sentiment  is  involved  and  too  little  unbiased  human 
nature.  But,  even  after  due  deductions,  the  progress 
from  the  Roman  Church,  conservatively  adhering  to  the 
traditions  of  the  past,  to  the  modern  Protestant  churches 
is  too  striking  not  to  serve  as  an  illustration  of  the  fact 
that  the  human  race  has  grown  in  power  to  realize, — 
that  is,  to  possess  thoughts  which  are  never  expressed. 

Whatever  vistas  these  considerations  may  open  for 
the  future,  it  is  probably  a  fact  that  at  the  present 
time  no  one  individual,  and  certainly  not  the  race  as  a 
whole,  has  attained  to  the  state  of  mind  prophesied  by 
Mr.  Ruskin.  If  this  is  true  of  the  people  to-day,  it 
was  infinitely  more  so  of  the  people  in  Greece.  Their 


32 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


world  of  thoughts  was  remarkably  simple;  even  their 
philosophers,  whose  teachings  are  admired  to-day,  shared 
this  blessing  of  comparative  simplicity;  and  the  funda- 
mental ideas  contained  in  the  great  Greek  tragedies  are 
far  removed  from  confusing  complexity. 

The  Greek  race,  according  to  their  own  ideas,  was 
autochthonos,  —  sprung  from  the  soil  where  they  lived, 
—  without  a  past  of  more  than  a  few  centuries.  We 
know  that  the  Greeks  were  mistaken, — that  back  of  the 
dark  middle  ages  of  Greece  there  lay  the  old  civilization 
of  glory  and  splendor  called  the  Mycenaean  Age;  and 
that  even  the  Mycenaean  Age  was  perhaps  not  the  first 
development  in  the  progress  of  the  race.  But  what  of 
it!  The  past  was  blotted  out;  the  memory  of  it  was 
gone ;  and  step  by  step  the  historic  Greeks  had  to  make 
their  advance,  apparently  unaided,  just  as  if  they  really 
had  sprung  from  the  soil.  No  thoughts  of  their  distant 
ancestors  had  been  recorded,  and  the  few  tremendous 
ruins  which  the  obHterating  storms  of  prehistoric  events 
had  been  obliged  to  spare  were  mistaken  for  remnants 
of  a  foreign  race  of  giants.  The  more  recent  discov- 
eries in  Mycenae  and  on  Crete  have  brought  to  light 
objects  of  art  which  show  a  splendidly  aesthetic  temper 
and  an  unusually  refined  power  of  enjoyment.  It  is  not 
impossible  that  these  traits  were  inherited  by  the  his- 
toric Greeks  from  their  distant  ancestors,  unknown  to 
themselves,  and  that  they  thus  account,  to  some  degree, 
for  the  unparalleled  and  rapid  artistic  advance  which 


THE  ARTIST  AND  HIS  PUBLIC  33 

took  place  when  the  race  had  again  "  found  itself."  But 
however  this  may  be,  every  thought  expressed,  for  the 
time  being,  was  a  new  thought,  and  was  greeted  with 
that  admirable  delight  which  accompanies  every  fresh 
achievement. 

The  wonderful  skill  of  the  Greeks,  and  their  great 
simplicity,  which  for  most  of  us  now  is  the  slow  result 
of  painstaking  and  liberal  education,  is  apt  to  make  one 
forget  that  after  all  the  Greeks  were  a  primitive  people. 
Like  all  primitive  people  they  were  constantly  trying 
to  realize  more  fully  those  thoughts  which  they  pos- 
sessed; and  when  a  thought  had  once  been  embodied, 
such  embodiment,  at  least  at  first,  stood  for  nothing  but 
the  one  definite  thought.  We  cannot  now  look  upon 
the  statue  of  the  god  Apollo  without  immediately  see- 
ing in  it  all  the  changes  which  the  conception  of  that 
deity  underwent  in  subsequent  ages,  especially  under 
the  process  of  contrasting  it  with  the  one  God  whose 
religion  was  destined  to  supplant  the  cheerful,  and  once 
helpful,  trust  in  the  Olympic  Pantheon.  The  extant 
statues  of  ancient  gods,  therefore,  are  for  the  modern 
beholder  largely  symbolic,  whereas  for  the  original 
Greeks  they  were  expressive  of  definite  thoughts.  It 
was  the  artists  who  gave  to  the  mental  images  or  ideas 
of  the  people  concrete  shapes,  and  they  could  do  so 
because  they  themselves  were  of  the  people. 

This  explains  why  the  ancient  artists  are  not  set  off 
as  a  class  by  themselves ;  for  the  fact  that  a  man  was 


34 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


gifted  with  the  power  of  expression  did  not  exempt  him 
from  the  closest  identification  with  the  general  public. 
Some  excerpts  from  later  Roman  writers  may  seem 
to  contradict  this  view,  but  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  Romans  were  given  to  draw  sharp  class  dis- 
tinctions. The  very  paucity,  therefore,  of  references 
pointing  toward  such  differentiation  between  Greek 
artists  and  their  public  may  be  used  as  an  argument 
in  favor  of  the  assertion  that  such  division  did  not  exist. 

The  Greek  artists,  then,  in  order  to  fulfill  their  calling 
well  had  to  be  wide-awake  children  of  their  own  time. 
Every  now  and  then,  especially  toward  the  end,  we 
find  a  harking  back  to  the  past,  but  never  to  the  extent 
of  forgetting  the  present  and  its  special  claims.  The 
Olympian  Zeus  by  Pheidias  was  unanimously  believed 
to  be  the  most  complete  realization  of  a  noble  thought; 
many  statues  were  carved  under  its  influence,  but  not 
one  single  instance  of  slavish  imitation  is  known  during 
the  centuries  that  intervene  between  its  erection  in  the 
fifth  century  B.C.  and  the  end  of  Greek  art. 

Not  a  single  one  of  the  best  Greek  statues  prob- 
ably was  meant  to  represent  a  thought  of  which  the 
artist  believed  himself  to  be  the  inventor  or  sole 
possessor  prior  to  the  completion  of  his  statue.  Such 
a  point  of  view  does  not  in  the  least  detract  from  the 
importance  of  the  artist,  for  he  is  the  first  to  seize  upon 
this  particular  aspect  of  the  idea  and  the  only  one  to 
give  it  a  visible  shape.    It  is  this  bodily  expression 


THE  ARTIST  AND  HIS  PUBLIC 


35 


which  enables  the  multitude  of  his  fellow-men  to  share 
with  him  an  accuracy  of  conception  which  without  his 
aid  would  at  least  be  difficult  to  attain. 

Such  and  similar  considerations,  based  upon  what 
happened  or  did  not  happen  in  antiquity,  cannot  form 
altogether  sound  premises  for  the  discussion  of  prin- 
ciples which  are  to  govern  the  relations  of  modern 
artists  to  their  public.  Present  conditions  are  too  differ- 
ent to  permit  exact  parallelisms  to  be  drawn  between 
the  ancient  and  the  modern  art  life.  No  student  of 
art  and  life,  however,  can  help  being  impressed  by  a 
certain  incongruity.  In  spite  of  superior  skill  our  artists 
as  a  class  do  not  seem  to  be  altogether  successful.  The 
difficulty,  however,  does  not  lie  so  much  with  them,  as 
artists,  as  with  the  public  of  whom  they  are  a  part, 
whence  they  draw  their  knowledge,  and,  if  not  actually 
their  inspiration,  anyhow  the  raison  d'etre  of  their 
inspiration.  The  responsible  public  no  longer  consists 
of  the  well-educated  few  with  an  enrapturing  family 
past,  but  of  practically  the  entire  populace.  This  popu- 
lace at  present  forms  a  heterogeneous,  often  discordant, 
whole.  Some  good  men,  therefore,  imbued  with  admira- 
tion for  the  noble  relics  of  the  past,  and,  genius-like, 
unconscious  of  some  of  its  sordid  conditions  which  the 
intervening  centuries  have  kindly  hidden  from  view, 
are  sounding  the  impossible  retreat.  The  march  of 
humanity  is  onward.  We  may  learn  of  the  spirit 
which  once  was  successful ;  but  in  every  case  its  right 


36  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

application  must  be  the  creation  of  new  conditions  in 
keeping  with  the  new  times. 

In  Greece  the  sculptors  worked  for  the  people  of 
whom  they  were  a  part.  They  knew  the  peculiarities 
of  their  nature,  and  endeavored  to  meet  their  needs. 
Abstract  reasoning  and  willful  perseverance  in  entirely 
subjective  and  therefore  often  unintelligible  nature 
interpretation  they  avoided.  "As  a  thing  appears  to 
me,  so  it  is,"  was  their  motto.  But  this  "  me "  did 
not  mean  the  artist  as  an  individual,  but  the  artist  as 
the  representative  of  the  people.  As  such  he  gladly 
placed  his  superior  skill  and  his  clearer  perceptions  at 
their  service.  What  he  carved  was  not  unknown  to 
them,  for,  if  they  had  done  nothing  more,  they  had  at 
least  felt  the  justice  of  the  thoughts  which  he  expressed. 
It  is  a  great  thing  to  be  an  individual  artist;  it  is  a 
greater  thing  to  be,  like  the  Greek  sculptor,  the  exponent 
of  the  best  ideas  of  his  people. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  GREEK  RELIEF 
SCULPTURE 

The  thoughtful  consideration  of  the  needs  of  human 
nature  which  characterizes  the  best  Greek  works  is 
nowhere  better  seen  than  in  reUef  sculpture. 

All  relief  sculpture  may  be  divided  into  two  large 
classes,  exhibiting  great  technical  differences.  The 
artist  may,  in  the  first  place,  design  and  carve  his 
figures  on  a  block  of  stone  of  which  he  hews  away  as 
much  as  he  likes  in  order  to  bring  out  the  contours. 
He  begins  on  the  front  plane,  beyond  which  no  figure 
may  project,  and  pays  no  attention  to  a  uniform  depth 
of  background.  This  kind  of  relief  may  be  called  the 
carved  relief. 

In  the  other  kind,  which  originated  when  the  sculp- 
tors no  longer  worked  upon  the  marble  itself  but  made 
their  first  designs  in  clay,  the  figures  are  modeled  sep- 
arately and  attached  to  one  uniform  and  unifying  back- 
ground, A  profile  view  reveals  the  entire  absence  of 
a  common  front  plane.  Eventually  these  models  may 
be  carved  in  marble  or  be  cast  in  bronze,  but  owing 
to  their  origin,  and  in  order  to  distinguish  them  from 
the  other  kind,  they  are  best  called  the  modeled  reliefs 

37 


38 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  best  known  reliefs  in  this  style,  which  is  very 
common  in  the  present  day,  are  the  Ghiberti  gates 
on  the  baptistery  in  Florence.  The  Greeks  practiced 
almost  exclusively  the  carved  relief. 

In  describing  a  Greek  relief  people  are  in  the  habit  of 
speaking  of  the  figures  as  raised  to  a  certain  height 
from  the  background.  This  is  obviously  inaccurate, 
because  the  technique  of  the  carved  relief  requires  their 
being  sunk  from  the  front  plane.  It  is  quite  possible  — 
and  of  frequent  occurrence  on  the  Parthenon  frieze  — 
to  have  the  right  side  of  a  figure  sunk  much  deeper 
than  the  left  side,  and  the  feet  deeper  than  the  head. 
There  is  then  practically  no  background  from  which  the 
figures  can  be  said  to  have  been  raised.  The  effect  of 
such  a  technique  is  that  the  figures  themselves  and  not 
the  background  —  which  in  pictures  often  is  the  promi- 
nent part  —  arrest  the  attention  of  the  spectator. 

The  human  faculty  of  vision  is  restless;  one  feels 
discomforted  if  one  is  obliged  to  keep  a  steady  focus  — 
that  is,  if  one  is  compelled  to  look  at  the  same  object  for 
any  length  of  time.  In  the  picture  one's  imagination 
may  wander  from  the  nearest  object  to  the  farthest,  and 
vice  versa ;  in  the  carved  relief,  which  contains,  broadly 
speaking,  only  the  nearest  object,  care  must  be  taken 
to  provide  variety  in  another  direction.  This  is  the 
reason  why  the  broad  expanse  of  the  Parthenon  frieze 
is  so  extremely  satisfactory.  The  skill  of  the  artists, 
by  a  multitude  of  clever  devices,  has  made  it  almost. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  GREEK  RELIEF  SCULPTURE  39 

impossible  to  look  long  at  any  single  figure.  Hardly  has 
the  spectator  understood  one  figure  when  its  lines  carry 
him  on  to  the  next  and  then  to  the  next,  first  rapidly 
and  then  slowly,  as  he  approaches  the  quiet  company  of 
gods  seated  above  the  entrance  door. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  a  relief  of  this  kind 
cannot  be  well  adapted  to  a  panel,  limited  in  size  and 
small  enough  to  fall  at  once  within  the  radius  of  distinct 
vision.  All  the  figures  are  crowded  into  the  foreground ; 
they  are  quickly  reviewed,  and  when  one's  eyes  desire  a 
change  there  is  no  expanse  into  a  distance  the  view  of 
which  could  satisfy.  The  natural  restlessness  of  one's 
vision  makes  one  feel  this  lack,  and  one  is  apt  to 
experience  a  sense  of  dissatisfaction. 

The  modeled  relief,  with  its  permitted  depth  of  back- 
ground, has  been  able  to  overcome  this  difficulty  to  a 
great  extent,  and  certainly  offers  possibilities  in  this 
direction  not  possessed  by  the  older  style.  None  of  its 
creations,  however,  to  the  present  day  can  be  said  to 
have  been  altogether  successful.  Great  depth  of  repro- 
duction requires  the  introduction  of  perspective;  and 
while  linear  perspective  is  not  incompatible  with  cor- 
poreal representation,  aerial  perspective  is,  because  it 
lessens  the  distinctness  of  the  contours  of  those  objects 
which  are  seen  at  a  distance.  Another  formidable 
obstacle  is  the  proper  treatment  of  shadows. 

It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  the  ancients  were 
aware  of  these  difficulties,  and  therefore  somewhat 


40 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


tenacious  in  their  adherence  to  the  practices  of  the 
older  style,  at  least  in  their  more  pretentious  works 
of  art.  In  minor  works,  notably  in  terra  cottas,  they 
pushed  the  tentative  beginnings  in  the  other  style  to 
a  considerable  extent.  Nothing,  however,  will  do  more 
to  clarify  the  views  on  Greek  relief  sculpture  than  to 
treat  of  the  two  styles  separately;  and  since  the  second 
style  occurs  in  ancient  times  only  in  works  of  secondary 
importance,  it  is  best  to  confine  oneself  to  the  carved 
relief. 

The  Greeks  had  no  distinguishing  words  for  high  or 
low  relief.  To-day  people  find  that  not  even  these  tw^o 
words  are  sufficient  to  designate  the  different  methods 
of  relief  work.  They  speak  of  high  relief  or  alto-relievo, 
mezzo-relievo,  low  relief  or  basso-relievo,  stiacciato,  and 
finally  have  to  coin  a  new  word  to  describe  a  method 
practiced  by  the  ancient  Egyptians.  The  very  fact  that 
only  "  high  rehef  "  and  "  low  reHef  "  are  idiomatic  Eng- 
lish terms  goes  far  to  show  that  these  are  the  most 
popular  reliefs  in  use  at  the  present  date.  The  same 
was  true  of  the  Greeks. 

The  names  themselves,  however,  characterize  the 
reliefs  only  to  a  certain  extent,  for  whereas  the  Par- 
thenon frieze  with  an  average  depth  of  from  two  to 
three  inches  and  an  extent  of  five  hundred  and  twenty- 
three  feet  is  called  low,  a  small  panel  exhibiting  the 
same  depth  is  apt  to  be  called  by  most  people  high 


PRINCIPLES  OF  GREEK  RELIEF  SCULPTURE  41 


relief.  The  terms  "  high "  and  "  low,"  therefore,  are 
only  relatively  descriptive.  The  real  differences  lie  in 
the  technique  and  in  the  design,  and  these  are  absolute. 
The  Greeks,  moreover,  did  not  use  high  or  low  relief 
indiscriminately  as  the  individual  taste  of  the  artist  or 
the  art  patron  demanded ;  for  the  selection  of  the  par- 
ticular method  to  be  employed  depended  upon  external 
circumstances,  such  as  lighting,  height,  and  so  forth. 

If  a  very  flat  relief  is  placed  in  a  well-lighted  room  it 
appears  indistinct ;  as  the  curtains  are  lowered  it  seems 
to  grow  out  from  the  background,  until  in  the  proper 
dim  light  it  fairly  approximates  the  lines  of  a  high  relief. 
This  is  the  reason  why  the  Greeks  had  no  distinguish- 
ing names  for  the  two  kinds  of  relief.  They  were  not 
intended  as  different  practices;  on  the  contrary,  the 
impression  made  upon  the  spectator  by  the  one  was 
to  be  approximately  the  same  as  that  made  by  the 
other.  The  Greeks  knew  the  importance  of  light  and 
shadow:  they  knew  that  the  same  work  under  different 
conditions  appears,  and  therefore  to  all  practical  pur- 
poses is,  a  different  work  of  art ;  and  that,  on  the  other 
hand,  two  reliefs  of  entirely  different  technique  may  be 
seen  as  much  alike  if  they  are  placed  under  proportion- 
ally different  conditions.  In  other  words,  the  work  of 
art  must  be  designed  for  the  particular  condition  under 
which  it  is  to  be  seen. 

That  this  was  the  practice  of  the  Greeks  is  attested 
to  by  a  story  current  in  antiquity,  according  to  which 


42 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Pheidias  and  his  famous  pupil  Alkamenes  once  entered 
a  competition  in  which  the  latter  came  near  winning  the 
prize  because  the  master's  statue,  at  short  range,  did  not 
seem  to  exhibit  the  same  pleasing  proportions  as  that  of 
his  pupil.  The  statues  were  designed  for  high  positions, 
and  not  until  they  had  been  so  placed  was  it  seen 
that  Pheidias  had  carved  an  infinitely  better  statue  than 
his  pupil.  The  story,  though  perhaps  a  spurious  anec- 
dote of  later  times,  invented  to  illustrate  the  practice 
of  Pheidias,  does  palpable  injustice  to  Alkamenes,  who 
probably  was  one  of  the  greatest  artists  of  the  fifth  cen- 
tury. The  statues  of  Pheidias  were  not  the  only  ones 
that  were  designed  for  the  particular  conditions  under 
which  they  were  to  be  seen,  for  the  same  can  be  said 
of  all  the  best  Greek  works,  and  not  to  the  least  degree 
of  the  Parthenon  sculptures.  That  these  latter  are 
splendid  even  now,  when  they  are  taken  from  their 
exalted  position,  is  an  additional  proof  of  their  exqui- 
site simplicity  and  delicate  workmanship.  No  student 
of  Greek  art,  however,  will  deny  that  the  Parthenon 
reliefs  and  pedimental  sculptures  would  appear  to  even 
better  advantage  if  they  could  be  restored  to  their 
proper  places  and  be  viewed  in  their  right  light. 

The  Ionic  frieze,  with  its  comparatively  low  reliefs, 
was  placed  around  the  cella  walls  on  the  inside  of  the 
colonnade,  where  the  direct  rays  of  light  never  could 
strike  it;  while  the  Doric  frieze,  broken  up  in  the 
triglyphs  and  metopes  with  powerful  figures  in  the 


PRINCIPLES  OF  GREEK  RELIEF  SCULPTURE  43 

highest  possible  relief,  was  attached  to  the  outside 
above  the  columns.  Here  it  commanded  the  maxi- 
mum of  light,  which  in  its  Athenian  intensity  of  bright- 
ness is  unknown  in  the  western  and  more  northerly 
climes. 

This  may  at  first  seem  strange,  for  most  people  rea- 
son that  the  dim  and  uncertain  light  of  a  half-interior 
requires  very  prominent  figures  to  have  them  at  all 
seen.  This,  however,  is  a  mistake,  as  experiments  can 
teach.  The  more  prominently  a  figure  stands  out  from 
the  background,  the  deeper  its  shadow  is.  Whatever 
figure  happens  to  be  in  this  shadow  disappears  from 
view  in  an  interior;  for  the  light,  which  is  dim  any- 
how, is  converted  into  darkness  by  the  addition  of  the 
shadow.  Shadows  are  so  much  darkness;  removed  they 
add  that  much  light  to  the  composition. 

The  suppression  of  the  shadows  may,  theoretically, 
seem  to  run  so  decidedly  counter  to  nature  that  the 
result  must  be  unsatisfactory.  This  is,  however,  not 
the  case,  for  shadows  are  often  all  but  unnoticed,  espe- 
cially on  gloomy  days;  and  even  under  bright  light 
their  absence  is  rarely  felt,  provided  there  is  uni- 
formity in  their  absence.  This  is  best  seen  on  the 
stage,  where  shadows  are  artificially  removed  by  throw- 
ing extremely  strong  side  lights  on  the  actors.  On  the 
stage  the  absence  of  shadows  is  often  a  necessity,  for 
the  background  is  painted  in  perspective.  A  painted 
house,  for  instance,  which  is  actually  only  ten  feet  back 


44 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


of  the  actor,  is  nevertheless  imagined  to  be  hundreds  of 
feet  away.  If  the  shadows  of  the  actor  were  to  fall  on 
the  house  top,  the  illusion  would  be  destroyed.  For 
this  reason  shadows  on  the  stage  are  avoided;  and  this 
is  done  without  giving  the  spectators  the  least  unpleas- 
ant sensation.  The  suppression  of  shadows  on  a  relief, 
therefore,  need  not  occasion  any  apprehension.  Expe- 
rience, moreover,  teaches  that  it  passes  unnoticed  if 
judiciously  and  uniformly  employed. 

These  considerations  may  prove  that  a  very  high 
relief  is  not  suited  for  a  position  in  dim  light.  Any 
doubts  as  to  the  advisability  of  placing  a  very  low  relief 
there  are  successfully  scattered  by  making  the  experi- 
ment mentioned  above.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  relief 
must  be  low  in  proportion  to  the  dimness  of  the  room ; 
for  the  lack  of  proper  light  makes  it  necessary  for  the 
composition  to  supply  its  own  light,  as  it  were,  which  is 
successfully  done  by  the  more  or  less  vigorous  suppres- 
sion of  shadows.  The  lowest  relief,  with  practically  no 
shadows,  belongs  to  the  darkest  room.  No  figure  is 
obscured  by  its  neighbor;  all  are  equally  well  seen. 
The  absence  of  shadows,  therefore,  has  added  so  much 
light  to  the  composition. 

Low  relief  supplements  the  absence  of  strong  light, 
whereas  high  relief,  by  its  vigorous  shadows,  tones  down 
the  brightness  of  too  much  light.  And  thus  the  very 
qualities  of  these  two  kinds  of  relief  equalize  the  differ- 
ences in  the  amount  of  light  under  which  they  are  seen. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  GREEK  RELIEF  SCULPTURE  45 


Their  impressions  upon  the  spectators,  consequently,  are 
more  ahke  than  could  be  expected  from  an  analytical 
study  of  them  when  they  are  removed  from  their  proper 
places  and  put  side  by  side  for  inspection  under  the 
same  strong  light. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  DIFFERENT  TECHNIQUE  OF  HIGH  AND 
LOW  RELIEF  SCULPTURE 

High  Relief 

The  impressions  of  high  reHefs  and  low  reliefs  in 
their  proper  places  may  be  similar;  their  technique, 
however,  is  very  different.  The  technique  of  high  relief 
is  by  far  the  simpler.  The  bulk  of  the  figures,  in  so  far 
as  they  are  detached  from  the  background,  is  almost  the 
same  as  in  nature.  And  if  the  figures  are  below  life  size, 
their  bulk  —  that  is,  their  thickness  —  can  be  propor- 
tionately reduced;  for,  as  Sir  Charles  Eastlake  says, 
"  The  eye  agrees  as  readily  to  the  reduction  in  bulk  as 
to  the  reduction  in  size."  The  very  prominence  of  the 
forms  and  their  necessarily  deep  shadows  require  a 
simple  composition.  The  figures  must  be  designed  so 
that  they  do  not  obscure  the  contours  of  each  other,  and 
so  that  they  stand  out  clearly,  each  one  by  itself.  To 
accomplish  this  result  they  are  carved  in  open  actiojt. 
The  action  of  a  figure  is  open  when  the  two  halves  of 
the  body  are  kept  separate,  —  the  right  arm  and  leg  on 
one  side,  the  left  arm  and  leg  on  the  other.  In  violent 
movement  the  arm  or  the  leg  of  one  side  is  apt  to  sweep 

over  to  the  other  side,  which  gives  contrasted  action, 

46 


HIGH  AND  LOW  RELIEF  SCULPTURE  47 

If  this  was  represented  in  high  relief,  the  prominent 
shadow  of  the  limb  crossing  the  body  would  tend  to 
obscure  the  outlines  of  the  figure.  Nothing,  however, 
is  of  greater  importance  either  in  the  art  of  painting  or 
of  carving  than  to  keep  the  outlines  pure.  This  does  not 
at  all  mean  that  one  must  see  every  single  line,  for  the 
lines  which  are  suggested  are  fully  as  important  as  those 
which  are  seen.  The  Greeks  knew  this,  as  is  proved 
by  the  practice  of  their  early  vase  painters,  who  before 
painting  draped  figures  drew  them  nude.  None  of  the 
lines  of  the  drapery  were  to  suggest  faulty  contours 
below.  Great  care,  therefore,  has  to  be  taken  not  to 
introduce  into  a  composition  any  element  that  would 
suggest  wrong  lines,  and  no  other  element  is  so  apt  to 
do  this  in  sculpture  as  the  shadow  of  actual  members 
crossing  the  body.  This  is  the  chief  reason  why  con- 
trasted action  is  to  be  avoided  in  high  relief.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  it  does  not  once  occur  on  any  of  the 
preserved  metopes  of  the  Parthenon. 

An  inevitable  result  of  this  restriction  upon  high 
relief  is  that  figures  from  such  compositions  will  rarely 
form  suitable  subjects  for  copies  or  adaptations  in  the 
round.  There  are  exceptions,  —  perhaps  the  Aphrodite 
of  Melos.  Figures  in  the  round,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  occasionally  been  adapted  for  transposition  in  a 
high  relief.  On  one  of  the  metopes  of  the  Parthe- 
non the  artist  has  made  use  of  the  Harmodios  of  the 
Tyrannicide  group  which  was  first  designed  by  Antenor 


48 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


(ca.  510  B.C.)  and  then  probably  copied  by  Kritios  and 
Nesiotes  (ca.  479  b.c).  The  figure  belongs  to  a  very 
early  period  of  Greek  art,  when  contrasted  action  had 
hardly  begun  to  be  used  even  for  figures  in  the  round. 

The  requirements  for  high  relief,  then,  are  a  very 
simple  composition  with  open  action  both  for  indi- 
vidual figures  and  for  entire  groups.  Shadows  supply 
variety  and  save  the  composition  from  monotony,  which 
would  be  its  fate  if  it  were  executed  in  low  relief. 

Low  Relief 

Low  relief  offers  the  proper  field  for  complicated 
groups  and  lively  figures  in  contrasted  action.  Since 
confusing  shadows  are  uniformly  and  almost  com- 
pletely absent,  it  is  possible  to  represent  rows  of  men 
two,  three,  four,  or  even  more  deep.  Such  a  repre- 
sentation in  high  relief  would  be  an  anomaly.  The 
nearest  figures  would  show  the  highest  projection,  and 
the  farther  ones  be  represented  in  gradually  diminishing 
bulk.  The  shadows  cast  would  be  different,  and  their 
lack  of  uniformity  would  reveal  the  unreality  of  the  com- 
position, not  to  speak  of  the  confusion  and  obscurity 
which  must  accompany  such  a  design  in  high  relief. 
In  low  relief  one  does  not  run  this  danger,  because 
all  the  shadows  are  equally  suppressed. 

Near  the  northwest  corner  of  the  Parthenon  frieze 
a  young  man  is  represented  as  standing  in  front  of  his 
horse,  page  38.    The  horse  is  seen  in  profile,  the  man  in 


LOW  RELIEF  SCULPTURE  49 

full  front  with  his  back  to  the  flank  of  his  horse.  If  one 
steps  up  close  to  the  frieze  and  looks  at  it  under  strong 
light,  one  sees  that  what  really  is  carved  is  a  young  man 
in  the  middle,  front  to,  with  the  hind  quarters  of  a  horse 
on  his  left  side,  and  its  head  and  fore  legs  on  his  right, 
all  carved  on  the  same  plane.  At  a  distance  and  under 
its  proper  light  the  original  illusion  again  returns, — 
one  sees  a  man  standing  in  front  of  his  horse.  The 
explanation  of  this  phenomenon  is  found  in  the  uncer- 
tainty of  human  vision.  Seeing  really  means  projecting 
everything  upon  one  definite  plane.  The  distances  of 
the  several  objects  thus  promiscuously  projected  upon 
one  common  background,  or  drawn  up  to  one  front 
plane,  are  guessed  at  —  for  it  really  is  nothing  but 
guesswork  —  with  reference  to  three  chief  and  largely 
unconscious  considerations :  first,  their  relative  size  and 
distinctness;  second,  their  shadows;  and  finally,  one's 
own  general  knowledge  of  the  fitness  of  things.  The 
distances  represented  on  the  Parthenon  frieze  are  not 
large  enough  to  necessitate  any  marked  differences  in 
size  and  distinctness,  especially  when  different  species 
are  drawn,  —  as  a  man  and  a  horse  on  this  slab.  The 
shadows  are  suppressed,  it  being  low  relief.  One  has 
therefore  to  rely  upon  one's  sense  of  fitness.  A  man 
in  front  of  a  horse  is  frequently  seen;  a  man  grafted 
in  between  the  two  halves  of  a  horse,  never.  The 
second  possibility,  therefore,  which  the  general  lines  of 
the  composition  admit,  does  not  occur  to  one's  mind. 


50 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


And  since  there  are  no  confusing  contours  or  disturb- 
ing shadows  to  contradict  the  first  idea,  the  spectator 
does  not  hesitate  to  read  it  into  the  composition, 
although  it  is  the  second  one  which  really  is  carved. 

To  speak  of  the  complete  suppression  of  shadows  in 
low  relief  is  not  entirely  correct,  for  even  the  lowest 
figures  throw  some  shadows,  although  the  introduction 
of  curving  contours  may  render  them  all  but  impercep- 
tible to  the  human  eye.  On  the  Parthenon  frieze  the 
artists  have  at  times  used  such  slight  shadows  very 
successfully  to  strengthen  the  intended  illusion  and  to 
guard  against  possible  detection.  The  outlines  of  the 
man  on  the  slab  under  consideration  are  relieved  against 
the  horse.  In  order  to  do  this  the  body  of  the  horse  is 
not  carved  in  one  horizontal  plane,  but  curves  away 
very  gradually  alike  from  the  head  and  the  tail  to  the 
background  in  the  center.  These  curves  are  so  gradual 
that  they  escape  notice  except  in  close  proximity.  They 
nevertheless  enabled  the  sculptors  to  give  sharp  outlines 
to  the  man,  strengthening  by  means  of  the  shadows 
which  his  body  seems  to  throw  on  his  animal  the  im- 
pression that  he  is  standing  in  front  of  his  horse. 

In  the  same  way  the  horse's  head  appears  to  be 
removed  from  the  spectator  by  at  least  the  thickness  of 
the  man's  body.  In  reality,  however,  it  is  carved  on  the 
same  front  plane  as  he.  This  shows  that  in  low  relief 
farther  objects  need  not  be  carved  on  more  distant  planes. 
The  front,  even  in  low  relief,  is  the  most  prominent  part 


LOW  RELIEF  SCULPTURE  5 1 

of  the  composition.  The  artist  may  therefore  pick  out 
those  details  to  which  he  wants  to  call  special  atten- 
tion and  carve  them  on  this  plane,  provided  he  manages 
their  contours  so  that  not  even  the  slightest  shadows 
contradict  the  illusion.  This  device  is  a  favorite  one 
with  the  Parthenon  sculptors.  Iris,  PI.  I,  Fig.  2,  the 
messenger  of  the  gods,  is  thought  of  as  standing  back 
of  Hera  on  the  east  frieze.  The  lower  half  of  her  fig- 
ure is  carved  on  a  distant  plane.  The  upper  half,  which 
could  not  be  seen  if  it  were  carved  there,  because  at 
the  height  of  thirty-nine  feet  the  projecting  lower  limbs 
of  Hera  would  have  hidden  it,  curves  forward  to  the 
front  plane,  on  which  her  breast,  head,  and  shoulders 
are  represented.  The  result  is  as  pleasing  as  it  would 
have  been  painful  if  the  drapery  on  Hera's  lap  had  shut 
Iris  from  view. 

Many  such  and  similar  devices  or  conventions  are  at 
the  disposal  of  the  sculptor  of  low  relief.  In  the  absence 
of  prominent  shadows  and  great  distances  he  takes  the 
spectator  at  his  weakest  point  —  his  uncertain  vision  — 
and  works  an  illusion  wherever  he  can. 

The  facility  with  which  such  an  illusion  is  wrought 
is  a  dangerous  boon  for  the  artist.  He  carves  one  thing 
and  wants  the  spectator  to  see  another.  If  he  actually 
represents  his  figures  bulk  for  bulk,  as  in  the  round, 
or  largely  in  high  relief,  there  is  little  danger  of  hav- 
ing any  one  imagine  he  saw  anything  but  what  was 
actually  represented;  but  when  the  sculptor  makes  use 


1 


52  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

of  conventions,  and  does  not  truthfully  represent  his  fig- 
ures, then  the  spectator  is  at  liberty  to  pick  out  any  pos- 
sibility that  may  offer  itself.  This  compels  the  artist  to 
design  his  composition  so  that  its  lines  cannot  be  inter- 
preted in  more  than  one  definite  way.  The  Parthenon 
sculptors  have  done  this,  and  of  the  many  hundreds  of 
figures  on  the  frieze  not  a  single  one  can  be  misun- 
derstood, although  not  one  is  carved  as  it  is  meant  to 
be  seen. 

The  figures  are  good  because  they  appear  correct, 
and  they  appear  so  because  the  artists  who  carved 
them  knew  how  to  reconcile  the  claims  of  objective 
and  of  subjective  nature.  The  means  by  which  this  is 
done  are  nowhere  less  disguised  than  in  reliefs,  which 
is  the  reason  why  the  study  of  these  reliefs  is  of  the 
greatest  importance  for  the  student  of  ancient  art. 


CHAPTER  VII 


GREEK  RELIEF  SCULPTURE  IN  ITS  RELATION 
TO  ARCHITECTURE;  RELIEFS  ON  ROUNDED 
SURFACES 

The  relation  of  Greek  relief  sculpture  to  architecture 
is  of  the  closest.  In  the  Parthenon  frieze  the  artists 
never  forgot  that  their  figures  were  seen  as  carved  on 
the  temple  walls.  Moving  figures  are  readily  imagined 
as  passing  by  a  solid  wall ;  trees  or  other  indications  of 
landscape  are  out  of  place.  A  few  large  stepping-stones, 
(West  Frieze,  page  60),  which  in  the  absence  of  stirrups 
in  ancient  times  were  used  to  mount  on  horseback,  are 
introduced,  but  they  do  not  disturb  the  uniformity  of 
the  conception.  The  close  adherence  to  such  limita- 
tions of  design  imposes  great  restrictions  upon  the 
sculptors ;  for  while  they  must  refrain  from  filling  occa- 
sional gaps  with  trees,  houses,  and  the  like,  they  must 
also  design  the  very  ground  upon  which  the  figures 
move  as  perfectly  plane.  No  unevenness  of  territory 
can  be  permitted  to  bring  variety  into  the  grouping; 
whatever  variety  there  is  must  be  given  by  the  figures 
themselves. 

The  sculptors  of  the  Parthenon  seem  to  have  ac- 
cepted these  laws  as  binding  principles.  Once  or  twice, 

53 


54 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


however,  even  they  have  deviated  from  a  strict  adher- 
ence to  them.  On  the  southern  frieze,  in  front  of  the 
cavalcade  and  ahead  of  the  chariots,  is  the  slow  proces- 
sion of  men  bringing  cows  and  sheep  to  the  sacrifice. 
Men  and  chariots  proceed  at  full  speed ;  cows  naturally 
walk  slowly.  The  difference  in  rapidity  between  these 
two  integral  parts  of  the  pageant  would  have  been 
noticeable,  and  probably  painful  in  its  effect,  if  easy 
transitions  had  been  lacking.  The  second  cow,  PI.  II, 
Fig.  I,  therefore,  is  represented  as  bolting.  She  has 
almost  broken  away  from  the  man  who  is  holding  her 
by  a  rope.  He  has  thrown  the  entire  weight  of  his 
body  against  her,  but  is  irresistibly  swept  along,  when 
suddenly  his  right  foot  strikes  a  bowlder  in  the  road, 
against  which  he  can  brace  himself.  The  headway  of 
the  cow  is  broken:  the  next  minute  she  will  be  under 
control.  The  bracing  attitude  of  the  youth  is  splendid, 
—  human  skill  matched  against  brute  force  and  victo- 
rious over  it !  Without  the  slight  unevenness  of  the 
ground  such  a  figure  would  have  been  impossible. 
The  entire  group  is  so  full  of  life  that  one  forgets 
the  device  of  the  artist. 

A  similar  instance  occurs  on  the  west  frieze,  but  such 
deviations  from  strict  principles  on  the  Parthenon  are 
rare.  They  occur  with  increasing  frequency  in  the  later 
buildings,  where  the  copious  representations  of  battle 
scenes  offered  unusual  temptations.  No  Greek  battle 
scene  is  complete  without  numerous  dead  or  wounded 


Battle  Scene,  Theseion  Frieze  (Ath 
From  Brunn-Arndt,  PI.  407 


RELIEF  SCULPTURE  AND  ARCHITECTURE 


on  the  ground.  When  the  ground  is  flat  the  compara- 
tive similarity  of  all  these  figures  becomes  monotonous. 
Reclining  figures,  moreover,  which  are  flat  on  their 
backs  on  a  horizontal  plane  appear  out  of  proportion 
if  accurately  represented,  because  human  eyes  move 
on  horizontal  and  on  vertical  lines  with  unequal  rapid- 
ity. The  Greeks  obviously  felt  this,  although  it  was 
left  to  modern  experimental  psychology  to  explain  it. 

The  conscious,  or  perhaps  unconscious,  desire  of  the 
Greeks  to  comply  with  this  law  of  nature  made  them 
at  first  carve  the  dead  in  contorted  positions;  for  in- 
stance, on  one  of  the  metopes  of  the  Parthenon,  PI.  XXI, 
Fig.  2,  where  a  victorious  centaur  is  swinging  his  pan- 
ther skin  in  exultant  glee  over  the  dead  Greek.  Later, 
in  the  endeavor  to  avoid  similar  awkward  positions, 
they  resorted  to  the  introduction  of  an  uneven  ground 
in  their  temple  reliefs.  On  the  poorly  preserved  but 
splendid  frieze  of  the  little  Athena-Nike  temple  in 
Athens,  PL  II,  Fig.  3,  some  of  the  most  pleasing  lines 
are  seen  in  the  conquered  warriors  who  in  death  have 
fallen  over  the  slight  hillocks  which  break  the  dead  level 
of  the  ground. 

The  frieze  was  designed  to  encircle  the  outside  of 
the  low  temple.  The  figures,  therefore,  which  could 
be  seen  at  rather  close  range  and  under  strong  light, 
had  to  stand  out  in  fairly  bold  relief.  They  are  not 
undercut,  but  they  throw,  nevertheless,  noticeable  shad- 
ows, and  are  therefore  designed  in  fairly  open  action. 


56 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Since  the  frieze  is  Ionic,  continuous,  and  not  broken  up 
in  triglyphs  and  metopes,  as  the  Doric  frieze  on  the 
outside  of  the  Parthenon,  the  strict  adherence  to  the 
principles  of  high  reUef  would  have  resulted  in  occa- 
sional spaces  of  absolute  emptiness  between  the  figures. 
It  was  this  fact  that  led  to  a  further  deviation  from  the 
laws  observed  in  the  Parthenon ;  for  the  gaps  could  not 
always  be  filled  with  fluttering  folds  of  drapery,  such 
folds  at  times  being  contradictory  to  the  action  of  the 
figures.  In  such  cases  the  well-known  Greek  horror 
vacui  tempted  the  sculptors  to  introduce  trees.  These, 
however,  were  treated  with  so  much  delicacy  that  they 
cannot  be  said  to  interfere  with  the  uniform  enjoyment 
of  the  composition. 

The  inevitable  result  of  such  moderate  deviations 
from  a  law  which  at  one  time  must  have  seemed  to 
the  Greeks  to  be  irrefragable,  was  the  gradual  introduc- 
tion of  other  and  less  judicious  practices.  Two  of  the 
most  important  instances  of  this  kind  are  found  on 
the  Athena-Nike  temple  frieze.  Several  warriors,  PI.  II, 
Fig.  3,  are  represented  with  their  backs  to  the  spec- 
tator, a  design  which  under  ordinary  conditions  would 
compel  one  to  think  of  them  as  actually  pressed  against 
the  background.  They  are,  nevertheless,  shown  in  vio- 
lent motion  and  with  sufficient  freedom  of  action  to 
continue  a  vigorous  fight.  Other  warriors  again  are  com- 
ing slantingly  out  from  the  background.  In  both  in- 
stances, therefore,  one  is  expected  to  imagine  the  figures 


RELIEFS  ON  ROUNDED  SURFACES  57 

somewhat  in  front  of  the  temple;  there  is  space,  air, 
between  them  and  the  wall.  It  matters  little  that  on 
the  whole  the  wall  still  continues  to  be  the  background 
of  the  composition ;  the  important  fact  is  that  in  several 
cases  air  has  been  substituted.  The  relief  no  longer  is 
an  integral  part  of  the  architectural  structure. 


Reliefs  on  Rounded  Surfaces 

Most  of  the  Greek  reliefs  were  placed  on  straight  sur- 
faces ;  but  when  cups  or  other  rounded  objects  were  deco- 
rated, a  new  technique  was  required.  Low  relief,  with 
its  many  devices  intended  for  the  production  of  an  illu- 
sion, was  obviously  out  of  the  question  because  of  the 
proximity  and  the  strong  light  under  which  these  objects 
could  be  seen,  and  high  relief  was  equally  inadmissible 
since  its  prominent  figures  would  have  destroyed  the 
proper  profile  of  the  rounded  surfaces.  The  ancients 
therefore  resorted  to  another  kind  of  relief,  in  which 
all  the  figures  were  equally  detached  from  the  surface 
to  about  half  of  their  thickness.  This  relief  is  called 
mezzo-relievo.  Several  marble  vases  of  a  later  day  are 
extant  in  this  style,  which,  however,  did  not  attain  to 
great  popularity  in  classic  times.  If  the  Greeks  had 
followed  the  practices  of  the  Egyptians,  who  decorated 
their  columns  with  sculptured  figures  instead  of  simply 
fluting  them,  as  was  done  in  Greece,  the  case  probably 
would  have  been  different. 


58 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Egyptian  Island  Relief 

The  discussion  of  Egyptian  practices  does  not  gen- 
erally throw  much  light  upon  Greek  sculpture;  in  this 
particular  case,  however,  it  is  rather  suggestive.  Since 
the  Egyptian  columns  were  often  seen  in  strong  light, 
low  relief  was  inadmissible.  High  relief,  on  the  other 
hand,  would  have  spoiled,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Greek 
cups,  the  architectural  profile  of  the  columns.  The  use 
of  the  possible  mezzo-relievo  too  would  have  meant  a 
great  waste  of  material  and  of  labor;  for  supposing  the 
height  of  the  reliefs  to  have  been  only  three  inches, 
this  would  still  have  m.eant  an  additional  thickness 
of  six  inches  to  the  diameter  of  the  column,  all  of 
which  again  had  to  be  neatly  cut  away  everywhere 
except  where  the  figures  were  represented.  The  Egyp- 
tians found  a  way  out  of  this  difficulty,  which  is  the 
more  surprising  as  it  implies  an  acute  observation  of 
the  frailty  of  human  vision.  They  drew  the  outlines  of 
the  figures  on  the  columns  and  surrounded  them  by 
a  deep  groove.  Inside  of  this  groove  they  applied  as 
much  modeling  as  they  deemed  necessary.  The  figures, 
being  thus  surrounded  by  a  channel  of  considerable 
depth,  were  completely  isolated.  This  style  of  relief 
sculpture,  therefore,  may  properly  be  called  the  island 
relief.  Its  aims,  like  those  of  low  relief,  are  to  create 
an  illusion.  If  one  steps  away  from  it  to  the  proper 
distance,  one  does  not  see  the  figure  as  it  actually  is. 


EGYPTIAN  ISLAND  RELIEF  59 

sunk  into  the  column,  but  prominently  standing  out 
from  it.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  grooved  out- 
line of  the  figure  nearest  the  light  shows  a  deep  shadow, 
while  its  opposite  side  is  fully  Hghted.  A  similarly 
strong  contrast  between  the  two  sides  of  a  figure  is 
noted  in  high  relief,  with  the  only  difference  that  the 
side  nearest  the  light  is  bright  while  the  other  is  dark. 
For  the  casual  observer,  therefore,  who  pays  no  attention 
to  the  direction  of  the  light,  provided  he  is  not  too  near 
to  the  composition,  the  two  kinds  of  relief  are  identical. 

The  Greeks,  who  were  doubtless  familiar  with  this 
island  relief  of  the  Egyptians,  with  whom  they  had 
occasional  periods  of  close  intercourse,  never  introduced 
it  into  their  own  works.  Their  columns  were  to  be  seen 
both  from  a  distance  and  close  at  hand.  Their  temples 
were  public  buildings,  and  the  colonnades  were  intended 
to  serve  as  shelter  against  the  heat  of  the  sun  and  the 
inclemency  of  the  weather.  The  Egyptian  island  relief, 
which  looks  well  at  a  distance,  is  painful  to  a  sensitive 
eye  near  by.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  Greeks  deco- 
rated their  columns,  not  with  figures,  but  with  simple 
flutings.  The  difference  in  the  Egyptian  and  the  Greek 
practice,  therefore,  offers  a  new  invaluable  proof  of  the 
delicacy  of  the  Greek  taste. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


PHYSICAL   EFFORT  AND  PLEASURE   OF  LOOK- 
ING AT  EXTENDED  COMPOSITIONS 

There  is  a  great  difference  between  looking  and  see- 
ing. One  often  sees  in  spite  of  one's  self;  but  it  takes 
a  certain  degree  of  mental  and  physical  energy  to  look 
at  an  object.  If  a  statue  be  placed  in  one's  way,  one 
cannot  help  seeing  it.  To  understand  its  thought  may 
imply  a  certain  mental  effort,  but  it  would  be  improper 
to  speak  of  a  physical  effort  on  the  part  of  the  specta- 
tor. An  extended  composition  in  either  high  or  low 
relief,  on  the  other  hand,  cannot  be  seen  at  a  casual 
glance;  one  must  look  at  it.  The  eye  is  focused  on 
the  relief ;  it  is  kept  there  and  follows  the  lines  which 
the  sculptor  has  carved,  up  and  down  and  from  side  to 
side,  until  the  entire  relief  has  been  surveyed.  This 
requires  a  very  decided  physical  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  spectator,  who  will  quickly  weary  of  his  task  unless 
the  artist,  by  making  use  of  all  possible  devices  in  his 
power,  succeeds  in  rendering  this  task  easy  and  pleas- 
urable. The  attention  of  the  spectator,  moreover,  ought 
not  to  be  centered  in  the  exercise  of  his  physical  faculty 
of  sight,  because  that  would  impede  his  understanding 
the  thoughts  of  the  artist. 

60 


East  Frieze  of  the  Parthenon 


West  Frieze  of  the  Parthenon 


From  Michaelis,  Def  Parthenon,  Pis.  IX  and  XIV 


EXTENDED  COMPOSITIONS 


6l 


If  the  human  faculty  of  vision  were  unlimited,  and  fol- 
lowing as  readily  the  impulse  directing  it  up  as  the  one 
urging  it  down,  or  moving  as  willingly  on  the  zigzag 
line  as  on  the  straight  line,  the  task  of  the  sculptor 
would  be  comparatively  simple;  since  it  is,  however, 
very  erratic  and  subject  to  many  limitations,  the  work 
of  the  sculptor  becomes  very  complex.  The  physical 
laws  according  to  which  the  eyes  move  have  only  quite 
recently  been  ascertained  by  experiments,  but  the  Greeks 
seem  to  have  felt  them  instinctively;  they  certainly  in- 
troduced many  devices  into  their  sculpture  which  are 
explained  only  if  one  regards  them  as  the  semiconscious 
endeavor  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  these  laws. 
It  must,  however,  not  be  believed  that  the  sculptors  will- 
fully deviated  from  their  original  designs  in  order  to 
make  due  allowances  for  the  peculiarities  of  the  eyes  of 
the  public.  They  were  one  with  the  public ;  what  was  un- 
pleasant to  the  eyes  of  the  people  at  large  was  unpleas- 
ant also  to  them,  only  perhaps  to  a  greater  degree.  The 
original  designs,  therefore,  doubtless  embodied  many  if 
not  all  the  devices  which  the  finished  works  exhibit. 

Even  in  the  earliest  Greek  works  of  art  such  a  deli- 
cate taste  is  noted  that  it  is  a  pleasure  to  let  one's  eyes 
glide  over  their  decorations.  Circles  are  often  found, 
rarely  mathematically  accurate,  but  on  that  very  account 
infinitely  more  gratifying  and  restful  to  the  eye  than 
those  on  later  vases  which  are  drawn  with  a  compass. 
It  is  hard  to  imagine  a  simpler  geometric  figure  than 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  circle;  every  point  of  the  circumference  is  equally 
removed  from  the  center,  and  the  curvature  is  a  con- 
tinuous one  of  a  fixed  and  never  changing  ratio.  One 
imagines  that  one's  eyes  can  run  its  circumference  with 
perfect  ease.  This  is,  however,  not  the  case,  because 
the  eyes  glide  more  readily  to  the  right  and  left  than 
up  and  down,  and  more  swiftly  up  than  down.  The 
time  and  effort  spent  in  scanning  the  left  semicircle 
is,  therefore,  different  from  that  spent  on  the  right. 
The  eye  that  has  to  run  around  the  circumference  of  a 
mathematically  correct  circle  does  not  receive  the  im- 
pression of  having  run  an  even  course.  The  mental 
image  and  the  actual  impression  through  the  vision  do 
not  tally.  If  one  knows  the  circle  to  be  accurate,  one  is 
apt  to  compel  one's  eyes  to  run  its  circumference  with 
even  rapidity,  thus  doing  violence  to  the  natural  charac- 
ter of  one's  vision.  The  inevitable  result  is  a  sensation 
of  discomfort,  and  if  not  of  actual  physical  pain,  cer- 
tainly not  of  pleasure.  All  this  is  avoided  by  the  fig- 
ures drawn  by  the  Greeks.  The  difference  in  rapidity 
with  which  one's  eyes  glide  over  a  circle  is  reflected 
in  corresponding  deviations  from  the  mathematically 
correct  shape;  and  the  result  is  not  only  thorough 
agreement  between  the  mental  image  and  the  visual 
impression  but  also  a  sensation  of  pleasure  both  mental 
and  physical.  To-day,  when  a  great  many  people  push 
their  studies  in  geometry  far  enough  to  become  thor- 
oughly familiar  with  its  figures,  the  early  Greek  circles 


EXTENDED  COMPOSITIONS  63 

are  detected  to  be  wrong  even  before  the  eye  has 
run  their  circumference,  so  that  they  often  fail  to  give 
satisfaction.  If  one,  however,  can  restrain  the  accuracy 
of  one's  scientific  mind  sufficiently  to  watch  for  the 
physical  pleasure  with  which  every  eye  scans  figures 
that  are  designed  to  meet  its  peculiarities,  one  has 
little  difficulty  in  deciding  in  favor  of  the  Greek 
practice. 

What  is  true  of  the  circle  is  also  true  of  other  curves 
and  lines,  only  that  it  is  much  more  difficult  to  demon- 
strate it.  Nor  is  the  sensitiveness  of  all  eyes  equally 
pronounced ;  the  attempt  to  point  out  all  the  niceties  is, 
therefore,  ill  advised.  Nobody,  however,  who  carefully 
studies  the  best  Greek  reliefs  can  be  unmindful  of 
the  ease  with  which  his  eyes  scan  the  compositions, 
so  that  he  not  infrequently  experiences  the  sensation  of 
physical  pleasure.  The  wonderful  facility  with  which 
one  looks  along  the  Parthenon  frieze  has  become  almost 
proverbial. 

There  is  another  peculiarity  of  the  human  eye  which 
must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  designing  an  ex- 
tended composition.  The  eye  does  not  glide  smoothly 
and  evenly  from  one  end  of  a  line  to  the  other,  but  by 
jerky  leaps  and  bounds,  as  people  with  sensitive  eyes 
can  find  out  by  self-observation,  and  others  by  watching 
people  read.  A  limited  space  can  be  seen  at  one  glance ; 
if  one  focuses  one's  eyes  on  one  spot,  one  can  see  a 
short  distance  in  every  direction.    In  reading,  therefore, 


64 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


one  does  not  begin  by  focusing  one's  eyes  on  the  begin- 
ning of  a  line,  but  slightly  to  the  right  of  it.  After  the 
words  or  syllables  which  fall  within  the  range  of  the 
focus  have  been  read,  the  eye  makes  a  jump  to  the  right, 
and  so  on  until  all  the  words  on  the  line  have  been  read. 
If  three  short  words  can  be  read  at  one  glance,  and  there 
are  nine  words  in  the  line,  it  will  take  three  movements 
of  the  eye  to  read  the  line.  Add  only  one  more  word, 
and  an  additional  movement  for  this  one  word  will  be 
required.  There  is,  therefore,  a  waste  of  physical  energy, 
because  the  addition  of  three  words  would  not  require 
more  than  this  one  word.  It  is  within  the  experience  of 
every  one  that  there  are  lines  of  certain  lengths  which 
can  more  easily  be  read  than  others. 

In  a  relief  the  lines  are  not  continuous;  there  are 
every  now  and  then  prominent  masses  which  call  for 
an  accurate  focusing  of  the  eyes.  Such  masses  which 
arrest  the  eye  are  distinguished  in  technical  parlance 
from  the  lines  which  carry  the  eye,  and  are  often  called 
spots.  The  heads  of  prominent  figures,  their  hands  or 
elbows,  the  hilts  of  their  swords,  and  the  like,  are  spots. 
The  artists  who  place  them  where  the  eye  naturally 
stops  in  its  jerky  advance,  save  the  spectator  the  effort 
of  focusing  his  eyes  upon  them,  and  thereby  do  a  great 
deal  to  make  his  task  easy. 

The  Parthenon  sculptors  and  their  contemporaries 
believed  in  keeping  the  spectator  continually  engaged. 
Wherever  the  eye  alighted,  so  to  speak,  it  was  to  be 


EXTENDED  COMPOSITIONS  65 

met  by  a  prominent  spot.  This  explains  their  crowded 
compositions :  the  eye  was  never  to  rest  upon  an  empty 
place ;  for  this,  according  to  their  point  of  view,  would 
have  been  a  waste  of  energy.  The  absence  of  empty 
spaces  to  any  large  extent  in  ancient  works  has  often 
been  noticed,  and  the  term  horror  vacui  has  been  coined. 
The  horror  vacui  faded  away  in  the  fourth  century, 
although  it  reappeared  later.  The  sculptors  of  the 
Mausoleum  in  Halicarnassus  (350  b.c.)  apparently  held 
that  it  would  give  more  pleasure  to  the  eye  to  have  an 
occasional  rest  than  to  be  obliged  to  survey  with  every 
movement  an  important  part  of  the  composition.  Their 
reliefs,  PI.  XXXII,  Figs,  i  and  2,  and  page  46,  therefore,  not 
being  crowded,  leave  many  empty  spaces  to  rest  the  eye. 

Of  the  many  devices  of  which  the  Greeks  made  use  in 
their  endeavor  to  meet  the  peculiarities  of  human  vision, 
none  is  more  remarkable  than  the  practice  of  isokepha- 
lism,  which  required  that  the  heads  of  all  the  figures 
should  be  practically  on  a  level.  This  the  Greeks  seem 
to  have  felt  to  be  a  necessity  for  the  reason  that  it  is 
easier  for  the  eye  to  glide  along  a  fairly  straight  line 
than  to  move  in  zigzag.  In  the  Parthenon  frieze  iso- 
kephalism  is  practiced  with  such  delicacy  that  one 
is  all  but  unconscious  of  the  incongruities  which  arise 
from  such  a  representation;  as,  for  instance,  when  the 
heads  of  men  on  horseback  are  not  much  higher  than 
those  of  men  on  foot,  or  if  the  heads  of  the  horses 
are  on  a  level  with  those  of  the  men.    In  earlier  times. 


66 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


however,  before  the  skill  and  the  genius  of  the  greatest 
men  had  taught  them  to  combine  with  this  device  at 
least  a  seeming  verisimilitude,  isokephalism  led  to  some 
remarkable  compositions.  On  the  frieze  from  Assos, 
PI.  II,  Fig.  2,  where  reclining  men  are  served  by  a 
standing  boy,  the  necessity  of  having  all  the  heads  on 
the  same  level  has  made  giants  of  the  men  and  a  pygmy 
of  the  boy.  The  willingness  of  the  sculptors  to  accept 
rather  the  opprobrium  of  having  carved  a  ridiculous 
relief  than  to  make  it  less  easy  for  the  eye  to  look  at, 
goes  far  to  show  how  deeply  the  Greek  artists  were 
impressed,  even  in  the  earliest  times,  by  the  necessity 
not  only  of  conceiving  ideas  which  it  is  profitable  and 
pleasant  to  understand  but  also  of  representing  them 
in  such  a  fashion  that  to  behold  them  gives  the  spec- 
tator the  sensation  of  physical  pleasure. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  COLORING  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

Greek  sculpture  for  most  people  means  sculpture  of 
marble,  and  beautifully  white  marble  at  that.  Bronze, 
however,  was  the  favorite  material  of  the  Greeks ;  and 
all  their  marbles  were  colored. 

When  the  Renaissance  artists  began  to  study  what 
was  left  of  the  antique,  the  extant  Greek  or  Roman 
statues  did  not  show  any  traces  of  color.  More  than 
a  thousand  years  had  passed  since  their  creation,  and 
under  the  influence  of  the  air  all  color  had  disap- 
peared; or,  if  the  statues  were  newly  excavated,  they 
were  by  a  process  of  vigorous  scrubbing  freed  from  all 
the  incrustation  that  their  long  burial  had  occasioned, 
and  were  thereby  deprived  of  any  traces  of  paint 
they  might  have  preserved.  The  artists  of  the  Re- 
naissance, therefore,  and  the  moderns  after  them, 
believed  in  the  purity  of  form  which  did  not  need  or 
even  permit  the  addition  of  color.  Scholars,  however, 
at  a  very  early  date  began  to  doubt  this  so-called 
purity  of  form,  basing  their  arguments  upon  four 
well-established  facts. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  seems 

to  have  had  colored  statues  of  saints  always.  The 

67 


68 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Church  is  very  conservative,  and  the  practice  of  color- 
ing her  saints  apparently  dates  back  to  her  very 
infancy.  Her  infancy,  however,  is  contemporaneous 
with  the  artistically  active  centuries  of  the  early  Em- 
pire, and  the  questions  arise :  If  classical  sculpture  was 
not  colored,  where  did  the  Christians  get  their  differ- 
ent practice?  or,  if  their  practice  consciously  deviated 
from  that  of  their  secular  contemporaries,  why  do  we 
not  find  references  to  them  in  any  of  the  early  church 
fathers  ? 

Second,  secular  sculpture,  too,  down  to  the  Renais- 
sance, was  not  infrequently  colored.  This  again  may 
very  well  be  a  survival  of  ancient  customs,  for  the 
sculpture  of  those  times  was  a  descendant,  however 
distant,  of  classical  sculpture. 

Third,  the  Egyptian  pieces  of  sculpture,  and  probably 
also  the  Assyrian,  were  profusely  colored.  The  inter- 
course between  the  Greeks  and  the  older  races  was 
rather  intimate  at  times;  Herodotos  even  made  a  sys- 
tematic study  of  the  differences  between  the  Greeks 
and  the  Egyptians.  If  he  never  had  seen  a  colored 
statue  at  home  he  might  be  expected  to  mention,  at 
least,  the  different  practice  of  the  Egyptians;  but  he 
is  silent  on  this  point. 

Fourth,  the  belief  of  the  Renaissance  sculptors  in  the 
purity  of  form  in  classical  times  cannot  be  used  as  an 
argument  either  way,  for  it  was  obviously  founded  on 
the  appearance  of  ancient  statues  in  their  time. 


Venus  Genetrix 
(Louvre) 


THE  COLORING  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE  69 

These  considerations  naturally  raise  grave  doubts  as 
to  the  generally  accepted  absence  of  color  on  Greek 
marbles,  especially  since  the  advocates  of  the  purity  of 
form  in  ancient  times  have  advanced  no  better  argu- 
ment than  that  to  the  modern  taste  a  deviation  from 
it  appears  to  be  barbarous.  Such  an  argument,  being 
entirely  subjective,  is  best  left  to  itself ;  it  needs  no 
refutation,  provided  the  weight  of  the  evidence  is  on 
the  other  side.  Evidence  to  this  effect  is  gathered 
from  three  sources,  —  the  literature  of  the  ancients, 
the  remains  of  their  art,  and  practical  experiments. 

Literary  Evidence 

Nowhere  in  ancient  literature  are  we  definitely 
told  whether  it  was  or  was  not  the  practice  of  the 
Greeks  to  paint  their  statues.  The  conclusions  which 
Mr.  Edward  Robinson  has  drawn  from  the  silence  of 
ancient  writers  on  this  point  are  to  the  effect  that  to 
paint  their  statues  was  either  so  general  a  practice  that 
it  occurred  to  them  as  little  to  speak  of  it  as  to  mention 
that  water  is  wet,  or  that  it  never  was  practiced.  This 
latter  alternative  is  denied  not  only  by  more  recent 
finds  but  also  by  a  few  definite  remarks  recorded  in 
Greek  and  Roman  literature.  Pliny  quotes  Praxiteles 
as  saying  that  he  prized  those  of  his  statues  the 
highest  which  the  famous  painter  Nikias  had  touched 
{manum  admovisset),  for  "  so  high  an  opinion  he  had 
of  his  coloring  of  statues  "  (circumlitio) ;  and  Plato,  in 


70 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


discussing  the  relative  value  of  colors,  makes  light  of 
the  artist  who,  in  the  endeavor  to  put  on  the  most 
beautiful  part  of  his  statue  the  most  beautiful  color, 
would  paint  the  eyes  golden  instead  of  black.  Such 
and  similar  passages  prove  conclusively  that  at  least 
some  statues  in  antiquity  were  colored ;  and  this,  as 
Mr.  Robinson  has  pointed  out,  goes  far  to  prove  that 
it  was  the  universal  custom  of  the  ancients  to  paint 
their  marble  statues. 

Indications  of  Color  on  Extant  Monuments 

Recent  finds  and  careful  examinations  of  the  extant 
monuments  strengthen  this  opinion.  There  are  in  the 
first  place  many  statues  on  which  traces  of  color  have 
been  found:  on  the  Aigina  pediments,  for  instance,  and 
the  draped  female  figures  from  the  Akropolis,  and  the 
Hermes  of  Praxiteles ;  while  many  others  clearly  indicate 
that  paint  originally  had  been  applied.  On  the  grave 
monument  of  Hegeso  in  Athens  the  lady  is  represented 
as  taking  something  out  of  her  jewelry  box  and  letting 
it  glide  through  her  fingers.  She  is  watching  the  object, 
which  itself  is  not  sculptured,  but  was  originally  either 
painted  or  left  to  the  imagination.  The  latter  alterna- 
tive seems  more  than  doubtful,  both  because  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  imagining  the  object  and  because  of  the  easy 
explanation  of  its  omission  by  accepting  the  theory  of 
applied  paint.  Then  there  are  other  statues  where  the 
uneven  corrosion  of  the  surface  suggests  the  application 


THE  COLORING  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE 


71 


of  color  in  different  degrees.  The  stele  of  Aristion, 
PL  III,  Fig.  3,  shows  a  well-defined  star  on  the  right 
shoulder  lap  of  the  cuirass.  The  color,  which  has  now 
completely  vanished,  was  once  probably  superimposed 
upon  the  body  color  of  the  cuirass ;  it  therefore  did  not 
wear  off  so  readily  as  the  rest,  and  preserved  that  part  of 
the  marble  which  it  covered  from  as  speedy  a  corrosion  as 
overtook  the  rest  of  the  stele.  The  figure  itself  did  not 
reach  to  the  bottom  of  the  slab,  but  w^as  separated  from 
it  by  a  rectangular  and  apparently  empty  space.  There 
is  a  very  similar  stele,  PI.  Ill,  Fig.  4,  also  in  Athens, 
which  represents  the  warrior  painted  and  not  sculptured. 
It  shows  the  same  rectangular  space  at  the  bottom,  on 
which  a  painted  miniature  horseman  still  can  —  or  at 
least  some  years  ago  could  —  be  made  out.  Nothing  is 
more  reasonable  than  to  suppose  that  the  identical  space 
of  the  Aristion  stele  was  filled  in  the  same  way  by  the 
painting  of  a  horseman.  A  painting  at  the  bottom  of  a 
sculptured  slab,  however,  seems  only  in  place  if  the 
carved  portions  are  not  left  entirely  colorless. 

On  the  Parthenon  frieze  hardly  any  accessories,  such 
as  bridles,  halters,  and  ropes,  are  carved.  Often  holes 
are  found,  which  apparently  served  as  places  of  attach- 
ment for  bronze  bridles  and  the  like,  while  at  times  no 
such  holes  can  be  noticed.  The  addition  of  bronze 
implements  deprived  the  frieze  of  the  uniformity  of 
color  anyhow,  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  assume  that 
where  no  holes  are  found  the  necessary  accessories  were 


72 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


painted.  It  must,  however,  not  be  believed  that  every 
minor  detail  was  either  added  in  bronze  or  was  painted ; 
a  great  deal  surely  was  only  suggested.  The  introduc- 
tion of  color  in  the  Parthenon  frieze  is  entirely  in  keep- 
ing with  the  architectural  scheme  of  the  building,  which 
was  highly  colored  above  the  capitals  of  the  columns. 
On  this  point  there  is  no  disagreement  on  the  part  of 
scholars. 

All  this  certainly  goes  to  show  that  the  Greeks 
resorted  to  the  use  of  color  in  their  marble  sculpture. 
On  not  a  single  statue,  however,  have  any  traces  of 
paint  been  found  on  the  flesh  parts,  and  therefore  the 
view  is  held  by  some  that  only  the  hair,  the  lips,  the  eyes, 
the  drapery,  and  the  accessories  were  painted ;  while  on 
the  nude  parts  only  the  natural  glare  of  the  marble  was 
toned  down  by  a  process  called  ganosis.  The  complete 
disappearance  of  color  on  the  smooth  flesh  parts  during 
the  intervening  twenty  centuries  or  more  is  not  sur- 
prising and  cannot  be  used  as  an  argument,  while  the 
meaning  of  the  words  circumlitio  and  ganosis,  both  of 
which  are  used  by  classical  writers  in  connection  with 
the  coloring  of  ancient  statuary,  is  very  obscure.  The 
main  argument,  therefore,  of  those  who  believe  in  the 
colorless  nude  in  ancient  art  is  based  solely  upon 
the  seemingly  correct  observation  that  the  extremely 
delicate  treatment  of  the  nude  in  the  best  periods 
would  have  been  an  incomprehensible  waste  of  time  if 
it  was  to  be  covered  by  paint. 


THE  COLORING  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Practical  Experiments 

It  is  here  that  the  actual  experiments  of  coloring 
casts  of  antique  statues  have  been  of  importance.  They 
establish  one  point  beyond  all  question,  according  to 
Mr.  Robinson  and  all  who  have  seen  such  statues, — 
"  and  one,"  says  Mr.  Robinson,  "  which  will  come  as  a 
surprise  to  many  who  have  examined  the  subject  only 
theoretically.  That  is,  that  color,  even  when  applied  as 
a  coating,  instead  of  diminishing  the  effect  of  the  mod- 
elling, heightens  it,  and  to  a  very  considerable  extent. 
Far  from  hiding  the  sculptor's  work,  it  brings  out  its 
beauty.  The  more  delicately  he  models,  the  more  will 
the  color  emphasize  its  delicacy ;  and  if  his  own  work 
be  poor,  the  color  will  accentuate  his  defects,  possibly 
because  it  brings  him  into  comparison  with  nature. 
This  is  shown  to  a  remarkable  degree  in  the  heads  of 
our  two  statues.  That  of  the  Venus  (Genetrix)  usually 
passes  for  a  fairly  good  head,  and  is  sometimes  spoken 
of  even  with  enthusiasm  for  its  delicate  contour  and 
subtle  smile.  [The  praise  is  very  undeserved!]  But 
colored  it  becomes  hard  and  dry ;  the  modelling  of  the 
cheeks,  and  especially  about  the  nose,  is  meagre,  betray- 
ing the  hand  of  the  copyist  more  than  any  other  part  of 
the  statue;  and  defects  in  the  modelling  of  the  mouth 
and  chin,  hardly  perceptible  in  the  white,  become 
unpleasantly  apparent.  In  no  part  of  either  statue  did 
Mr.  Smith  have  to  work  so  hard,  or  to  try  as  many 


74 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


experiments  in  order  to  produce  a  result  which  would 
be  on  a  par  with  the  rest.  The  head  of  the  Hermes, 
on  the  contrary,  shows  the  marvelous  beauty  of  mod- 
elling much  more  effectively  under  the  color  than  in 
the  white  cast.  The  exquisite  modulations  are  so 
much  more  apparent  when  painted,  that  by  contrast 
the  white  cast  has  a  curious  empty  look.  And  what 
is  true  of  the  heads  is  equally  true  of  other  portions 
of  the  statues.  The  body  and  drapery  of  the  Venus 
are  modelled  much  more  finely  than  the  head,  and  the 
colors  emphasize  this  fact. 

"  If  these  experiments  teach  nothing  else,  they  will  at 
least  demonstrate  that  the  addition  of  color,  instead  of 
enabling  the  sculptor  to  slur  his  work,  subjects  him  to 
new  and  severe  exactions ;  and  hence  they  offer  a  sug- 
gestion as  to  one  of  the  most  important  factors  in  the 
rapid  rise  to  perfection  of  Greek  Sculpture." 

Such  experiments,  though  they  hardly  can  be  said  to 
have  proved  the  application  of  color  on  the  nude  parts 
of  Greek  statues,  have  nevertheless  shifted  the  respon- 
sibility of  a  proof  to  the  other  side.  Color  was  used  on 
ancient  marbles ;  the  addition  of  color  on  all  parts,  even 
the  nude,  is  perfectly  possible,  and  therefore  in  the 
absence  of  definite  data  apparently  the  natural  thing 
and  moreover  perfectly  in  keeping  with  colored  terra 
cottas,  many  of  which  are  believed  to  be  made  in 
imitation  of  statues,  and  in  full  agreement  with  the 
paintings  of  colored  statues  in  Pompeii. 


THE  COLORING  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  Selection  of  Colors 

With  the  question  of  color  application  fairly  well 
settled,  another  and  more  difficult  one  presents  itself: 
in  other  words,  What  colors  were  selected  and  how 
were  they  applied  ?  Were  the  statues  painted  in  rep- 
resentation of  reality?  There  is  no  information  what- 
soever to  be  gleaned  from  ancient  literature,  and  the 
few  dots  of  paint  actually  to  be  found  on  the  marbles 
are  of  little  consequence.  In  the  first  place  they  may 
represent  only  the  body  color,  while  the  actual  shade 
which  was  seen  may,  and  probably  has,  disappeared; 
and  in  the  second  place  even  they  surely  have  faded 
and  been  changed  under  the  influence  of  the  air  or 
the  mineral  ingredients  of  the  soil  whence  the  statues 
have  been  rediscovered.  In  coloring  the  two  casts 
in  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  as  described 
by  Mr.  Robinson,  Mr.  Smith  apparently  acted  on  the 
assumption  that  the  colors  applied  to  the  drapery  of 
a  statue  were  the  same  as  those  used  in  dyeing  the 
actual  garments  worn  by  the  Greeks.  This,  however, 
is  no  doubt  a  mistake.  The  Greek  statues  did  not 
exhibit  actual  garments,  but  rather,  in  keeping  with 
the  mental  images  represented  in  the  statues,  the  con- 
ceptions of  garments.  They  were  not  real,  so  that  the 
application  of  the  real  color  is  entirely  out  of  place. 
The  effect  of  Mr.  Smith's  colored  casts,  therefore,  was 
decidedly  unpleasant,  and  it  is  no  matter  of  regret 


76 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


that  they  have  since  been  withdrawn  from  exhibition. 
Another  attempt  may  turn  out  more  successful,  but  it 
will  always  be  impossible  to  decide  just  what  colors 
were  applied,  and  how,  unless  perhaps  some  unex- 
pected discoveries  in  the  future  advance  definite  hints 
in  this  direction. 

Possible  Objections 

The  first  prominent  man  to  espouse  the  cause  of  the 
advocates  of  the  application  of  color  in  Greek  marbles 
was  Quatremere  de  Quincy,  who  drew  many  of  his  con- 
clusions from  the  highly  colored  temple  images  in  gold 
and  ivory.  Since  then  the  general  trend  of  science  has 
been  in  his  direction,  until  it  may  be  safely  said  that 
now  all  scholars  who  take  the  pains  of  investigating 
the  question  at  all,  come  to  much  the  same  conclu- 
sion. They  do  so,  however,  in  spite  of  some  flaws 
in  the  argument,  and  a  few  considerations  which,  it 
cannot  be  denied,  may  militate  against  it. 

The  most  formidable  objection  is  the  fact  that  the 
Romans  were  in  the  habit  of  copying  Greek  bronzes 
in  marble.  There  is  no  indication  whatever  that  the 
slavish  Roman  copyist  painted  his  copies  of  his  own 
accord.  Painted  and  unpainted  marble  statues  were 
therefore  in  existence  side  by  side ;  but  a  great  deal 
has  been  made  of  the  argument  that  either  none  or 
all  of  the  ancient  marbles  were  painted.  It  is  true 
that  the  marble  copies  of  bronzes  belong  to  Roman 


THE  COLORING  OF  GREEK  SCULPTURE  77 

times,  but  so  do  the  majority  of  the  writers  from  whose 
silence  on  this  point  the  conclusions  were  drawn.  It 
may  of  course  be  possible  that  Roman  marble  copies 
of  bronzes  received  a  bronze  coating,  but  since  this 
is  nowhere  mentioned  it  does  not  seem  to  be  likely. 
Pliny,  moreover,  speaks  of  a  Greek  marble  statue  in 
Rome  wearing  sandals  without  the  straps.  Origi- 
nally, therefore,  the  straps  probably  were  painted ;  the 
paint  had  completely  worn  off,  and  when  Pliny  saw 
the  statue  it  was  uncolored.  This  seems  to  show 
that  the  Romans,  at  least,  were  not  entirely  unaccus- 
tomed to  seeing  unpainted  marble  statues.  And  if 
this  is  so,  the  question  arises.  When  was  the  practice 
of  coloring  statues  discontinued?  The  earliest  Greek 
works  were  not  carved  in  marble,  but  in  very  soft  stone. 
It  was  so  soft  that  the  paint  was  thoroughly  absorbed, 
and  the  remains  of  this  early  stone  sculpture  in  Athens 
show  that  all  were  completely  covered  with  paint.  This 
early  practice  doubtless  was  continued  when  marble 
was  introduced.  If  the  conclusion  is  correct,  that  the 
Romans  in  the  time  of  Pliny,  that  is  in  the  first  cen- 
tury of  our  era,  were  accustomed  to  see  also  unpainted 
statues,  then  a  change  must  have  taken  place  some- 
where during  these  six  centuries  from  early  Greek  times 
to  Pliny.  The  references  to  Praxiteles,  and  the  actual 
traces  of  paint  found  in  the  hair  and  on  the  sandals 
of  his  Hermes,  show  that  in  the  fourth  century  before 
Christ  the  painting  of  marble  statues  was  still  practiced. 


78  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

A  complete  change,  therefore,  if  it  took  place  at  all, 
must  have  occurred  at  some  subsequent  time ;  when, 
it  is  beyond  our  knowledge  to  ascertain. 

Such  and  similar  considerations  which  apparently 
militate  against  the  universal  use  of  color  on  Greek 
marble  statues  must  not  be  taken  too  seriously.  They 
show  how  impossible  it  is  to  make  a  perfectly  clear  case 
out  of  anything  that  happened  two  millennia  ago ;  but 
they  are,  if  compared  with  the  strong  arguments  in 
favor  of  the  practically  universal  custom  in  Greece  of 
painting  marble  statues,  too  slight  and  too  uncertain 
to  have  great  weight. 

One  point  may  be  said  to  have  been  proved  conclu- 
sively, and  that  is  that  ancient  marbles  did  not  habitu- 
ally exhibit  the  "colorless  purity  of  form."  The  final 
proof  to  the  effect  that  they  never  exhibited  it,  is  still 
outstanding.  All  recent  discoveries,  however,  and  all 
investigations  have  gone  to  argue  in  its  favor.  It  is 
therefore  not  unreasonable  to  expect  that  before  long 
the  present  theory  of  the  coloring  of  ancient  statuary 
may  have  become  a  universally  accepted  fact 


CHAPTER  X 


ART  CONDITIONS  BEFORE  THE  SEVENTH 
CENTURY  B.C. 

The  middle  of  the  seventh  century  before  Christ, 
now  generally  taken  as  the  beginning  of  historic  Greek 
sculpture,  is  not  marked  by  any  especially  important 
historical  event.  Very  gradually  the  mist  rises  which 
hides  the  preceding  centuries  from  the  investigator's 
eyes,  and  it  is  not  until  one  more  century  has  passed 
that  he  feels  on  sure  ground.  No  extant  Greek  statue, 
however  fragmentary,  can  be  dated  earlier  than  between 
650  or  625  B.C. ;  beyond  that  lie  the  dark  middle  ages 
of  Greece.  The  Greeks  themselves  had  a  very  hazy 
notion  of  that  period  :  some  definite  facts  were  remem- 
bered across  the  ages,  others  were  invented  to  explain 
existing  conditions,  and  everything  was  gathered  round 
a  few  popular  heroes,  whose  characters,  if  they  really 
had  existed,  were  so  boldly  altered  that  they  could  no 
longer  be  distinguished  from  the  creations  of  fiction. 
Such  legends  are  interesting,  but  they  may  be  readily 
dismissed  in  the  discussion  of  actual  facts.  Discoveries 
made  by  the  archaeologists  and  the  anthropologists  are 
here  of  greater  importance,  because  they  are  probably 

as  accurate  as  they  unfortunately  are  scant. 

79 


8o 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  inhabitants  of  Greece,  of  the  islands  of  the 
^gean,  and  of  the  coast  of  Asia  Minor  belonged  to 
the  Aryan  race,  which  at  a  very  early  time,  coming  per- 
haps from  Asia,  perhaps  from  some  part  in  northern 
Europe,  had  divided  into  five  prominent  families.  Each 
one  of  these  families  and  branches  of  families  had  a^ain 
subdivided,  and  the  prominent  branches  of  the  Greeks 
were  the  Aiolians,  the  lonians,  and  the  Dorians.  The 
Dorians  were  perhaps  the  latest  comers  and  apparently 
the  least  civilized.  Long  before  their  arrival,  at  about 
iioo  B.C.,  the  others,  it  is  believed,  had  established  a 
very  flourishing  civilization  in  Greece.  The  first  finds 
of  this  early  civilization  to  command  general  attention 
were  made  in  Mycenae  in  1876  by  Dr.  Schliemann ;  and 
because  it  was  at  the  time  believed  that  the  Mycenaeans 
were  the  only  ones  who  had  thus  far  advanced  on  the 
road  of  human  progress,  this  civilization  was  called 
the  Mycencean  Age.  Very  soon,  however,  it  was  found 
that  other  people  had  shared  the  blessings  of  this  age. 
For  want  of  a  better  name,  however,  and  because  of 
its  familiarity  the  term  "  Mycenaean  civilization "  has 
been  retained,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  scholars  to-day 
look  for  the  center  and  the  origin  of  the  flourishing 
conditions  in  Crete. 

The  date  of  the  Mycenaean  Age  is  fixed,  chiefly  by 
means  of  contemporaneous  Egyptian  events,  from  about 
1600  to  IIOO  B.C.  The  earlier  date  is  still  very  uncer- 
tain, and  some  recent  discoveries  seem  to  show  that  it 


"Apollo"  of  Tenea 
(Munich) 


CONDITIONS  BEFORE  SEVENTH  CENTURY  B.C.     8 1 


ought  to  be  placed  much  farther  back,  perhaps  even  in 
the  third  millennium  before  Christ.  Earlier  than  this 
nothing  is  known  of  the  Greeks.  How  long  they  had 
been  in  the  country,  whether  they  brought  any  civiliza- 
tion with  them,  whether  the  Mycenaean  civilization  was 
their  first  attempt  or  only  the  revival  of  an  older  one 
that  had  crumbled  away,  —  all  this  eludes  our  most 
painstaking  investigation. 

Thanks  to  the  indefatigable  efforts  of  the  archaeolo- 
gists of  all  nations,  the  art  life  of  the  Mycenaean  Age  is 
to-day  fairly  well  known.  Sculpture,  to  judge  of  the 
remains,  was  little  practiced,  for  the  lionesses  over  the 
citadel  gate  of  Mycenae,  PI.  IV,  Fig.  i,  are  the  only  ex- 
tant works  of  consequence.  Painting,  more  especially 
wall  painting,  was  much  in  favor,  and  the  fragmentary 
figures  of  an  extended  fresco  in  the  great  palace  of 
King  Minos  in  Crete  which  have  been  brought  to 
light,  exhibit  daring  in  composition  and  great  delicacy 
of  lines.  The  minor  arts,  however,  notably  the  gold- 
smith's art,  were  very  flourishing.  Hundreds  of  mag- 
nificent works  of  this  kind  are  in  existence,  which, 
taken  together  with  the  many  thousands  of  small  orna- 
mented trinkets  from  the  opened  graves,  give  a  rather 
complete  idea  of  the  aims  and  achievements  of  these 
early  artists.  The  artists  were  not  working  for  show, 
as  is  often  the  case  with  crude  people  who  have  much 
accumulated  wealth ;  for  though  they  worked  in  gold, 
it  is  not  the  splendor  of  the  expensive  material  that 


82 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


impresses  the  spectator,  but  the  delicate  shape  into 
which  it  has  been  wrought  and  the  refined  taste  which 
is  shown  in  the  selection  of  its  ornaments.  In  spite 
of  this  fact,  human  figures  and  animals  rarely  occur. 
The  majority  of  the  patterns  are  fanciful  inventions 
of  the  artist's  mind,  but  they  are  never  grotesque  or 
complex  or  overdone;  they  are  simple  spirals,  circles, 
curves,  or  other  unpretentious  figures.  The  artists 
who  made  these  works  and  the  people  for  whom  they 
were  made,  apparently  were  blessed  with  an  intense 
love  for  the  beautiful  and  a  temperament  of  great 
simplicity. 

Somewhere  about  iioo  B.C.  this  flourishing  civiliza- 
tion suddenly  lapsed,  long  before  it  had  reached  what 
could  possibly  be  called  decline  leading  to  decay.  It 
is  therefore  clear  that  some  important  historical  event 
must  have  occurred  at  that  time,  and  this  was  prob- 
ably the  Dorian  invasion.  It  did  not  take  place  all  at 
once,  but  probably  extended  over  a  period  of  at  least  a 
century.  The  country  was  well  settled,  and  when  the 
Dorians  kept  pushing  from  the  north,  many  of  the  old 
inhabitants  had  to  yield  and  leave  their  homes.  Most 
of  the  people  of  the  Peloponnesos  probably  emigrated 
to  Asia  Minor,  while  those  that  remained,  like  the  Mes- 
senians,  were  doomed  to  eternal  slavery.  In  the  turmoil 
of  readjustment  no  time  was  left  for  artistic  expressions. 
Mr.  Ruskin  once  said,  "Art  is  possible  only,  when 
after  satisfying  the  needs  of  daily  life,  there  is  enough 


CONDITIONS  BEFORE  SEVENTH  CENTURY  B.C.  83 

mental  and  physical  energy  left  for  '  play ' " ;  and  dur- 
ing these  struggling  times,  when  some  were  defending 
their  old  homes  and  others  were  fighting  for  their  new 
country,  neither  time  nor  energy  could  be  spared  for 
"play."  By  about  1000  B.C.  all  the  Dorians  were  in 
their  new  seats,  but  centuries  had  yet  to  pass  before 
conditions  were  at  all  settled.  These  three  hundred 
and  fifty  years  to  the  beginning  of  historic  Greece 
have  been  well  named  the  dark  middle  ages  of  Greece. 
They  are  indeed  dark,  with  only  one  ray  of  light  in 
them, — the  Homeric  poems.  It  matters  little  whether 
the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  were  written  by  one  man, 
or  whether  they  were  the  compilation  of  many  poets; 
whether  they  were  first  sung  in  the  ninth  century  or 
only  shortly  before  650  B.C.  The  important  fact  is 
that  subsequent  to  the  downfall  of  the  Mycenaean  civ- 
ilization, and  before  the  dawn  of  historic  times,  there 
were  people  who  could  sing  such  songs  and  others 
who  could  enjoy  them. 

The  civilization  described  in  the  Homeric  poems  is 
apparently  a  mixture  of  the  memories  of  glorious  times 
in  the  continental  homes  and  of  the  idealization  of  the 
poet's  own  surroundings.  The  arts  have  a  very  inferior 
position  in  them,  and  the  finest  articles  described  seem 
to  be  of  Oriental  importation.  This  goes  to  show  that 
the  arts  really  had  as  completely  disappeared  in  Greece 
as  the  absence  of  remains  indicates.  Gem  cutting  alone 
flourished  to  some  extent.    Most  of  the  finds  of  this 


84 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


kind,  however,  were  made  on  the  islands  of  the  v^gean, 
and  are  therefore  known  as  island  gems.  They  differ 
considerably,  not  only  in  shape  and  decoration  but  also 
in  workmanship,  from  the  earlier  Mycenaean  gems. 

When  by  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century  the 
political  conditions  of  Greece  were  sufficiently  settled 
to  allow  of  a  renewed  expression  in  art,  the  skill  of 
hand  of  the  Mycenaean  artists  was  entirely  lost.  It  was, 
moreover,  in  a  new  direction  that  the  Greeks  began  to 
express  themselves ;  for  whereas  sculpture  before  the 
Dorian  invasion  had  been  but  little  fostered,  it  now 
began  to  be  the  foremost  art  of  the  people.  Painting 
probably  at  all  times  was  its  worthy  second,  although 
the  perishableness  of  pictures  does  not  now  enable  us 
to  appreciate  this  fact. 

To  what  extent  the  historic  Greeks  were  indebted 
to  their  early  ancestors  for  the  inheritance  of  a  deli- 
cately aesthetic  temper,  is  a  question  which  can  never  be 
satisfactorily  answered.  If  one  assumes  that  much  of 
the  Greek  love  of  the  beautiful  was  inherited  through 
the  centuries  in  spite  of  the  Doric  invasion,  one  finds 
less  difficulty  in  explaining  the  wonderfully  rapid  ad- 
vance in  the  arts  after  the  first  and  very  crude  begin- 
nings. This  advance,  indeed,  was  so  sudden  that  many 
have  looked  for  influences  outside  of  Greece  to  explain 
it,  but  in  her  sculpture  at  least  Greece  was  independ- 
ent of  the  influences  of  any  one  of  the  countries  that 


CONDITIONS  BEFORE  SEVENTH  CENTURY  B.C.  85 

can  at  all  come  under  consideration  in  this  connection, 
—  Phoenicia,  Assyria,  and  Egypt. 

The  Phoenicians  were  the  traders  of  antiquity  until 
their  place  was  taken  by  the  Ionian  Greeks.  They 
facilitated  the  intercourse  between  the  intellectual  crea- 
tions of  the  several  people ;  but  although  highly  gifted 
they  never  had  much  of  an  art  life  themselves.  In 
their  country  hardly  any  pieces  of  sculpture  have  been 
found,  and  therefore  they  could  not  have  had  any  direct 
influence  upon  the  development  of  sculpture  in  Greece. 

The  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  is  perhaps  the  oldest 
known  civilized  race  of  the  world,  dating  back  to  many 
thousands  of  years  before  Christ.  Their  country  was 
very  poor  in  stone,  especially  in  the  south,  where  their 
first  achievements  were  made.  The  north  was  richer 
in  this  material,  which  for  primitive  sculpture  is  indis- 
pensable ;  but  even  there  sculpture  was  not  very  popu- 
lar. Figures  in  the  round  are  extremely  few;  while 
relief  sculpture  was  not  fully  developed  until  the  times 
of  Assur-Nazir-Pal  (in  the  ninth  century  B.C.),  and  espe- 
cially Assur-Bani-Pal,  who  is  better  known  as  Sardana- 
palos  (668-626  B.C.).  The  differences  between  Assyrian 
and  Greek  sculpture,  moreover,  are  so  many  and  so 
obvious  that  no  one  can  long  believe  that  any  help  was 
derived  by  the  Greeks  from  this  quarter,  at  least  in  their 
sculpture.  In  their  vase  paintings  and  other  minor  arts 
Oriental  influences  are  undeniable. 


86 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  Relation  of  Greek  Sculpture  to  Egyptian 
Sculpture 

With  the  Egyptians  it  is  different,  for  a  somewhat 
superficial  resemblance  between  the  earliest  Greek 
statues  and  a  certain  type  of  figures  well  known  in 
Egypt  has  led  many  to  believe  that  Greece  was  much 
indebted  to  Egypt  in  all  that  regards  the  art  of  sculp- 
ture. This  view  has  seemed  especially  plausible  be- 
cause the  beginnings  of  sculpture  in  Greece  almost 
coincide  with  the  reassumption  of  close  commercial 
relations  between  the  two  countries  when  Psammetic 
(663-610  B.C.)  opened  his  kingdom  to  foreigners,  and 
the  Greeks  founded  there  the  commercial  colony  of 
Naukratis.  The  beginning  of  sculpture,  however,  and 
the  founding  of  Naukratis  need  have  no  immediate 
connection  beyond  being  the  simultaneous  expressions 
of  an  active  race,  which  at  last  had  found  sufficient 
peace  and  leisure  at  home  to  exert  itself  in  different 
directions. 

The  Egyptians  were  a  very  old  race  with  a  proud 
past,  the  records  of  which  were  preserved,  cut  or 
painted  upon  stone  in  temples  and  graves.  Every 
event  was  dated  by  the  reigns  of  the  kings,  and  since 
the  list  of  kings  is  rather  well  known,  one  has  com- 
paratively little  difficulty  in  compiling  a  history  of 
Egypt  reaching  back  for  thousands  of  years.  The 
Egyptians  themselves,  however,  though  they  knew  how 


CONDITIONS  BEFORE  SEVENTH  CENTURY  B.C.  87 

to  reckon  by  years,  computed  their  history  by  dynas- 
ties, that  is,  continuous  reigns  of  kings  belonging  to 
one  definite  family.  It  is  therefore  not  always  pos- 
sible to  assign  to  an  event  or  a  dynasty  its  equivalent 
date  in  years.  Occasionally  one  is  assisted  by  the 
record  of  some  natural  phenomenon  the  accurate  date 
of  which  is  known ;  as,  for  instance,  the  occurrence  of 
an  eclipse  during  the  reign  of  a  certain  king,  or  by 
contemporaneous  and  datable  events  of  Assyrian  or 
Greek  history.  In  spite  of  the  uncertainty  of  some 
dates  most  scholars  now  agree  that  the  first  known 
dynasty  of  Egyptian  kings  dates  at  least  three  or  four 
thousand  years  before  Christ. 

The  earliest  Egyptian  monuments  are  the  best  be- 
cause they  are  the  most  genuine  art  expressions ;  those 
of  later  times  are  sometimes  distinguished  by  a  delight- 
ful grace  in  outlines  and  in  masses,  but  they  never  again 
accurately  render  the  peoples'  conceptions.  Egyptian 
art  conceptions  may  be  said  to  have  fossilized  after 
the  first  twelve  dynasties,  for  the  subsequent  revivals 
in  the  eighteenth,  nineteenth,  and  twentieth  dynasties 
(ca.  1600-1100  B.C.),  and  in  the  twenty-sixth  dynasty 
(663-525  B.C.)  were  almost  exclusively  concerned  with 
the  outward  appearances  of  the  statues  and  had  little 
to  do  with  thoughts  expressed  in  them. 

Standing  statues  (cf.  PI.  Ill,  Fig.  i)  were  carved  all 
through  the  years  that  ancient  Egypt  lasted.  The  stat- 
ues stand  erect,  generally  with  the  left  foot  in  advance, 


88 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


and  since  this  is  also  the  position  of  some  of  the  earliest 
Greek  statues,  it  is  here  that  some  writers  believe  the 
Greeks  received  their  help;  there  are  people  who  even 
say  that  the  Greeks  set  themselves  actually  to  copy 
the  Egyptian  statues.  Nothing  can  be  less  true.  The 
Egyptians  took  special  pains  with  the  head  and  the 
features,  the  body  receiving  only  passing  attention ; 
in  Greece  the  head,  from  the  earliest  times,  was  only 
one  of  the  parts  of  the  body  and  not  entitled  to  greater 
care  than  any  other  part.  This  alone  ought  to  suffice 
to  disprove  any  actual  copying  of  the  Egyptian  works 
of  art  on  the  part  of  the  early  Greeks,  not  to  speak  of 
the  different  spirit  which  pervades  the  creations  of  the 
two  peoples.  A  joyous  prophecy  of  better  things  to 
come  greets  one  in  the  Greek  statues,  while  not  even 
the  best  Egyptian  statues  after  looo  b.c.  disguise  the 
fact  that  they  are,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  senile  crea- 
tions of  a  fossilized  art.  How  is  it  possible  to  believe 
that  the  young  Greek  artists  went  to  Egypt  to  culti- 
vate their  taste,  and  after  having  been  in  the  company 
of  the  conventional  statues  of  the  Egyptians,  returned 
home  to  carve  figures  which  in  execution  are  as  far 
below  the  Egyptian  as  they  are  ahead  of  them  in  joyous 
conception ! 

There  is  not  a  single  point  of  resemblance  between 
these  statues,  except  the  superficial  one  of  the  pose; 
and  this  may  very  well  be  accidental  and  due  to  the 
necessity  of  solving  identical  problems.  Reasoning  from 


CONDITIONS  BEFORE  SEVENTH  CENTURY  B.C.  89 


accidental  resemblances  is  always  dangerous  and  ought 
to  be  avoided.  When  some  thirty  years  ago  Mr.  Rim- 
mer  was  asked  to  design  a  statue  of  Hamilton  for  a  site 
on  Commonwealth  Avenue,  Boston,  he  decided  to  carve 
his  figure  not  of  marble  but  of  local  granite.  Brittle 
granite  was  the  material  most  frequently  used  by  the 
Egyptians,  and  without  realizing  it  Mr.  Rimmer  found 
himself  compelled  to  make  allowances  for  the  pecul- 
iarities of  his  material,  which  were  almost  entirely  Egyp- 
tian. The  figure  is  carved  in  one  solid  mass,  from 
which  neither  the  arms  nor  the  legs  can  detach  them- 
selves ;  the  pose  is  very  straight  and  stiff,  and  the 
drapery,  hanging  low  in  the  back,  takes  the  place  of 
the  Egyptian  supporting  pillar  which  was  introduced 
to  give  stability  to  the  statues.  The  American  statue 
of  Hamilton,  carved  in  the  nineteenth  century  by  one  of 
the  most  accomplished  anatomists  of  America,  is  clearly 
Egyptian  in  execution,  and  yet  it  is  known  that  noth- 
ing was  farther  from  Mr.  Rimmer's  mind  than  to  copy 
the  practices  of  those  ancient  people. 

Granting,  therefore,  that  the  early  Greeks  did  not 
intend  to  copy  their  neighbors  across  the  Mediterra- 
nean, it  may  still  be  possible  —  though  not  necessarily 
probable  —  that  they  borrowed  from  the  Egyptians  the 
idea  of  representing  their  men  standing  with  the  left 
leg  in  advance.  Mr.  Gardner  calls  this  the  borrowing 
of  the  alphabet  of  art.  But  even  if  this  view  is  correct 
it  does  not  mean  that  the  Greeks  received  any  actual 


90 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


help  from  the  Egyptians;  for  if  suddenly  the  Zulus  or 
the  Hottentots  felt  the  necessity  of  expressing  their 
ideas  in  writing,  and  in  the  absence  of  letters  of  their 
own  were  to  borrow  the  English  alphabet,  it  surely 
would  not  follow  that  their  literature  was  in  the  least 
indebted  to  English  thought. 

In  their  sculpture,  then,  the  historic  Greeks  received 
no  help  from  the  outside,  nor  had  they  any  monuments 
of  a  great  past  art  to  teach  them  ;  on  the  contrary  they 
evolved  everything  from  within,  from  the  nobility,  hope- 
fulness, and  genuineness  of  their  own  character. 


CHAPTER  XI 


MATERIAL,  TECHNIQUE,  DESTRUCTIVE  FORCES, 
EARLY  IGNORANCE,  AND  SOURCES  OF 
KNOWLEDGE 

The  material  of  Greek  sculpture  was  largely  either 
bronze  or  stone.  It  is  now  well  known  that  in  later 
years  bronze  was  far  more  extensively  used  than  marble ; 
but  in  the  beginning  the  Greeks  probably  turned  more 
readily  to  stone,  and  in  the  very  beginning,  perhaps, 
to  wood.  The  Greek  climate  is  less  clement  than  the 
Egyptian,  so  that  no  wood  sculptures  have  been  pre- 
served. On  the  mainland  of  Greece  and  especially 
in  Athens  the  artists  used  soft  local  stones,  "  tufa " 
or  "  poros,"  which  were  easily  carved  and  offered  few 
obstacles  to  the  unskilled  hand.  Later  a  harder  stone, 
generally  marble,  was  used.  Parian  and  Naxian  marble 
were  the  first  to  enjoy  general  popularity,  until  they 
were  largely  superseded  in  the  fifth  century  by  the  Pen- 
telic  marble,  at  least  for  Athenian  use.  The  neigh- 
boring Mt.  Hymettos,  also  near  Athens,  offered  another 
very  acceptable  but  somewhat  bluish  marble.  In  white- 
ness none  of  the  Greek  marbles  can  compare  with  the 
beautiful  product  from  Carrara,  which  was  not  known 

to  the  ancients  before  Roman  imperial  times. 

91 


92 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  earlier  Greek  sculptors  in  marble  probably 
worked  on  the  block  itself  without  first  making  life- 
sized  models.  It  is  even  doubtful  whether  they  made 
any  models  at  all.  Later  models,  perhaps  in  clay  or 
plaster,  were  used,  and  an  inscription  from  Epidauros 
in  the  fourth  century  b.c.  is  probably  correctly  inter- 
preted to  mean  that  Timotheos  received  a  certain  sum 
of  money  for  making  the  models  for  the  pedimental 
groups  of  the  temple  which  were  to  be  executed  by 
inferior  artists ;  while  in  the  first  century  b.c.  great 
sculptors  realized  much  money  by  the  sale  of  their 
models  alone.  In  the  best  times,  however,  the  execu- 
tion in  marble  was  certainly  not  intrusted  to  workmen 
but  was  always  done  by  the  artists  themselves.  The 
practice  of  piecing  marble  was  known  and  extensively 
made  use  of  at  a  very  early  date. 

A  bronze  statue  requires  the  preparatory  completion 
of  an  accurate  model.  In  modern  times  such  models 
are  composed  of  many  pieces,  all  of  which  are  cast 
separately  and  finally  joined  together.  The  ancients, 
on  the  contrary,  seem  to  have  preferred  casting  their 
figures  in  as  few  pieces  as  possible.  One  of  the  most 
recent  acquisitions  of  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts, 
which  consists  of  the  lower  half  of  a  life-sized  draped 
statue,  was  cast  in  one  entire  piece. 

Bronze  is  an  alloy  of  various  metals.  Copper,  zinc, 
and  tin  compose  modern  statuary  bronze ;  in  ancient 
times  it  seems  to  have  contained  a  small  addition  of 


Artemis  of  Gabii 
(Louvre) 


I 


MATERIAL  AND  TECHNIQUE  93 

lead.  This  metal  has  the  unpleasant  quality  of  render- 
ing the  molten  mass  less  even,  and  is  therefore  rarely 
used  in  modern  times ;  it  makes  the  alloy,  however, 
softer  and  less  brittle,  and  thus  enables  the  artist  to 
put  some  finishing  touches  on  the  statue  after  it  is  cast. 
The  great  advantage  of  this  is  that  some  of  the  most 
delicate  modeling  need  not  be  put  on  the  form,  where 
it  is  apt  to  be  lost  in  the  process  of  casting,  but  may 
be  introduced  on  the  statue  itself. 

The  finished  bronze,  according  to  Pliny,  was  rubbed 
over  with  bitumen,  probably  to  give  to  its  three  or  four 
separately  cast  parts  a  uniform  gloss  without  greatly 
altering  their  natural  color.  In  modern  times  bronzes 
often  are  treated  with  acids  to  give  them  an  artificial 
pati7ia.  This  is  done  because  it  takes  a  long  time  to 
have  the  bronze  oxidize  under  the  influence  of  the  air, 
to  the  peculiarly  pleasing  green  hue  noticed  on  antique 
statues,  called  patina;  and  also  because  modern  bronze 
casters,  for  technical  reasons,  are  less  careful  in  mixing 
the  alloy  with  a  view  to  its  ultimate  appearance.  Some 
modern  statues,  moreover,  which  were  left  to  oxidize 
under  the  sole  influence  of  the  air,  have  been  found 
to  show  an  unpleasantly  dirty  black  patina,  the  reason 
for  which  is  unknown,  though  it  is  believed  that  the 
dirt  and  soot  of  the  large  commercial  cities  of  to-day 
may  be  responsible  for  it.  The  bluish  patina  found  on 
bronzes  discovered  in  Pompeii  and  the  greenish  one 
on  those  from  Herculaneum  are  probably  due  to  the 


94 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


mineral  ingredients  of  the  soil  and  the  ashes  or  lava 
in  which  the  statues  were  buried  for  almost  eighteen 
centuries.  The  ancients  used  several  different  kinds 
of  alloy,  —  the  Delian,  Argive,  and  Aiginetan,  —  but  it 
is  not  known  to  what  degree  the  one  differed  from  the 
other,  nor  what  were  their  several  advantages. 

Gold  and  silver  were  also  used  for  dedicatory  statues, 
but  these  materials  were  poorly  adapted  to  sculpture, 
for  their  intrinsic  value  and  glittering  surface  necessa- 
rily prevented  the  statue  from  making  its  full  appeal  to 
the  spectator.  If  gold  was  an  unsatisfactory  material  in 
which  to  cast  entire  statues,  it  was  on  the  contrary  well 
adapted  to  the  decoration  and  ornamentation  of  the 
drapery  of  large  temple  images.  Many  such  images  of 
gold  and  ivory,  called  chryselephantine^  were  built  up 
around  a  wooden  core,  with  ivory  for  the  nude  parts  and 
gold  for  the  drapery.  They  were  especially  frequent 
during  the  age  of  Perikles,  when  Pheidias  finished  in 
this  style  his  huge  Zeus  in  Olympia  and  his  Athena 
in  the  Parthenon  at  Athens.  When  the  money  did 
not  sufifice,  polished  marble  was  substituted  for  the 
ivory,  and  gilded  wood  for  the  gold ;  the  effect  of  such 
akrolithic  statues  was  probably  much  the  same  as  the 
effect  of  those  made  of  the  more  costly  materials. 


DESTRUCTIVE  FORCES 


95 


Destructive  Forces 

That  none  of  the  chryselephantine  statues,  and  only 
one  in  gold  (now  in  Madrid),  has  been  preserved  to 
our  day,  is  not  in  the  least  surprising,  owing  to  the 
market  value  of  the  materials ;  but  it  is  astonishing  to 
learn  that  of  the  entire  wealth  of  Greek  statuary,  both 
of  stone  and  of  bronze,  hardly  a  small  fraction  of  one 
per  cent  has  come  down  to  us,  and  that  of  the  origi- 
nals only  one  can  be  assigned  to  any  of  the  great  sculp- 
tors. Several  forces  have  combined  to  bring  about  this 
state  of  affairs. 

Time  itself,  of  course,  has  proved  to  be  very  destruc- 
tive. Left  to  themselves  few  marble,  and  no  wooden, 
statues  have  been  able  to  endure  the  annual  changes 
of  the  Greek  climate  or  the  frequent  earthquakes  which 
have  laid  low  the  majority  of  the  Greek  temples.  The 
Romans,  too,  despoiled  the  conquered  country  of  many 
statues.  Sulla  alone  carried  several  hundred  of  them 
away  from  Delphi,  and  Caligula  even  attempted  to 
remove  the  colossal  Zeus  from  Olympia  to  Rome. 
When  the  statues  were  removed  by  wholesale  they 
were  detached  from  their  bases,  on  which  the  artists 
had  engraved  their  names;  and  when  the  ships  were 
unloaded  in  Italy  all  means  of  identification,  except 
in  the  case  of  a  few  famous  pieces,  were  lost.  The 
Romans  were  extremely  fond  of  statues,  without  at 
first  being  willing  to  make  many  of  their  own;  and 


96 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


since  not  even  the  thousands  which  were  shipped  from 
Greece  filled  the  demand,  they  set  about  to  copy  those 
they  liked  best.  Marble  in  Italy  was  very  cheap  and 
labor  was  cheaper,  and  these  Roman  copies,  therefore, 
took  the  place  of  the  modern  plaster  casts  for  the  dec- 
oration of  libraries,  halls,  villas,  gardens,  and  the  like. 
The  originals  imported  from  Greece,  with  nobody  to 
care  for  them,  gradually  disappeared.  Some  doubtless 
were  again  removed  to  adorn  the  new  capital  when  the 
empire  was  divided  into  a  western  and  an  eastern  half ; 
others  were  broken  in  the  turbulent  times  which  fol- 
lowed upon  the  northern  invasion  after  a.d.  375;  and 
still  others  were  buried,  partly  in  the  ruins  of  the  build- 
ings where  they  stood,  partly  by  loving  owners  who  de- 
sired to  preserve  them  from  the  enemy  and  never  had 
the  opportunity  of  bringing  them  again  to  light.  Of 
the  many  which  remained  in  Greece  some  were  wan- 
tonly destroyed  by  the  Goths  and  other  invaders,  while 
not  a  few  fell  victims  to  the  vulgar  zeal  of  the  early 
Christians,  who  carried  their  hatred  of  the  ancient  gods 
to  the  extent  of  breaking  the  statues  which  had  adorned 
their  sacred  precincts. 

In  spite  of  all  these  destructive  forces,  many  more 
statues  would  still  have  been  preserved  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  incredible  vandalism  of  the  inhabitants. 
Reverence  for  the  antique  was  unknown  to  them,  and 
until  Greece  was  liberated  in  the  nineteenth  century 
from  the  Turkish  yoke,  generation  after  generation 


DESTRUCTIVE  FORCES  97 

pillaged  what  was  left  of  ancient  works  of  art.  Marble 
reliefs  and  large  statues,  if  cut  in  pieces,  are  excellent 
building  material;  and  there  probably  are  few  villages 
in  modern  Greece  where  at  least  one  statue  or  relief 
could  not  be  discovered  if  the  houses  were  torn  down. 

The  most  formidable  of  all  agents,  however,  working 
toward  the  utter  destruction  of  Greek  marbles,  is  con- 
nected with  the  very  excellence  of  the  material;  for  it 
makes  the  best  lime.  Statue  after  statue  has  found 
its  way  to  the  limekiln,  because  it  was  much  easier  to 
take  the  statues  at  hand  than  to  quarry  new  blocks. 
Bronzes,  on  the  other  hand,  were  melted  to  realize  the 
market  value  of  the  metal,  which  always  was  high. 

With  these  numerous  forces  at  work,  and  some  of 
them  uninterruptedly  for  more  than  two  thousand  years, 
the  wonder  no  longer  is  that  so  few  statues  have  been 
preserved  but  that  so  many  have  escaped  destruction. 
Recent  excavations  have  brought  many  of  them  to 
light,  some  from  the  ruins  of  the  sacred  precincts  where 
they  had  been  erected  and  finally  forgotten,  —  the  Her- 
mes of  Praxiteles  among  them ;  and  others  from  the 
structures  into  which  they  were  built  by  the  unapprecia- 
tive  inhabitants,  as  for  instance  the  large  friezes  of  the 
altar  at  Pergamon,  which  were  used  by  the  Turks  to 
strengthen  their  walls.  Many  of  these  works  were  care- 
fully looked  for ;  others  have  come  to  light  unexpectedly. 
The  most  notable  instance  of  this  kind  was  the  cargo 
of  a  shipwrecked  Roman  vessel  discovered  off  Cape 


98 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Malea  two  years  ago.  Unfortunately  the  influence  of 
the  salt  water  and  volcanic  upheavals  of  the  bottom  of 
the  sea  have  badly  damaged  what  fate  itself  seems  to 
have  begrudged  the  greedy  Romans. 

Several  other  works  were  for  a  time  almost  miracu- 
lously preserved  from  destruction,  as  for  instance  the 
Parthenon.  It  was  early  changed  to  a  Christian  church 
and  afterwards  to  a  mosque,  and  even  the  barbaric 
tastes  of  the  later  inhabitants  of  Athens  spared  the 
building  and  its  sculptured  decorations.  But  when  the 
holy  war  broke  out  against  the  Turks,  and  Christian 
armies  set  out  from  everywhere  to  drive  the  barba- 
rians from  European  soil,  then  the  building  was  utterly 
destroyed.  The  Italian  General  Morosini  had  orders  to 
attack  the  Mussulmans  in  Athens ;  they  retreated  to  the 
Akropolis,  and  confident  that  the  civilized  Christians 
would  show  reverence  to  the  building  which  even  they 
had  spared,  they  stored  their  powder  in  the  Parthenon. 
Morosini  had  hardly  learned  of  it  when  he  turned  his 
guns  upon  the  Parthenon,  and  on  September  26,  1687, 
the  Parthenon  was  blown  up.  Not  all  the  sculptured 
decorations  were  destroyed  in  the  explosion;  but  once 
begun,  the  destruction  was  vigorously  continued,  and 
slab  after  slab  wandered  into  the  limekiln,  while  many 
other  pieces  were  wantonly  destroyed.  It  is  written  in 
official  records  that  the  heads  of  figures,  both  on  the 
frieze  and  on  the  metopes,  were  used  as  targets  for 
pistol  practice  by  the  Turks. 


EARLY  IGNORANCE 


99 


Early  Ignorance  of  Greek  Sculpture 

The  Romans  had  only  a  very  slight  knowledge  of 
Greek  sculpture,  and  in  the  Middle  Ages  even  this 
disappeared.  Greece  was  a  lost  world,  —  so  completely 
lost  that  when  the  interest  in  humanistic  matters  burst 
forth  in  the  early  Renaissance,  there  was  not  a  man 
in  Italy  or  northern  Europe  who  knew  the  language. 
Greek  scholars  had  to  be  imported  from  Byzantium. 
Nothing  was  dated  farther  back  than  Rome,  and  every- 
thing was  looked  at  with  Roman  eyes.  A  Greek  statue 
of  Zeus  had  become  a  Jupiter,  Hermes  was  known  as 
Mercury,  Aphrodite  as  Venus.  Our  own  civilization  is 
the  direct  descendant  of  the  Renaissance  ;  and  although 
in  the  field  of  ancient  sculpture  we  now  have  gone  far- 
ther back  than  they, — we  have  gone  to  Greece  herself, 
—  many  of  the  earlier  notions  which  were  derived  from 
the  study  of  the  Roman  view  of  Greek  sculpture  still 
cling  to  us,  and  among  other  things  we  still  wrongly 
persevere  in  calling  the  Greek  gods  and  goddesses  by 
their  Roman  names.  Jupiter,  it  is  true,  was  the  Roman 
father  of  the  gods,  just  as  Zeus  was  the  Greek ;  but  the 
characters  of  the  two  gods  were  not  at  all  alike.  The 
Greek  Aphrodite  as  goddess  of  love  was  an  entirely 
different  deity  from  the  lustful  Roman  conception  of 
Venus.  In  speaking  of  Greek  statues,  therefore,  it  is 
more  correct,  and  consequently  decidedly  preferable, 
to  use  the  Greek  names;  not  to  mention  the  fact  that 


lOO 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  musical  quality  of  the  Greek  names  renders  them 
generally  more  pleasing  to  the  ear. 

When  Winckelmann  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century  first  sounded  the  note  of  honest  and  unbiased 
study  of  the  past,  a  great  mass  of  unarranged  material 
had  been  gathered  in  the  various  museums.  The 
painstaking  labor  of  his  successors  has  brought  order 
out  of  this  chaos  by  a  judicious  use  of  the  only  two 
sources  whence  an  accurate  knowledge  can  be  derived. 

Sources  of  Knowledge 

These  sources  are,  in  the  first  place,  monumental, 
and  secondly,  literary.  The  monumental  sources  con- 
sist primarily  of  the  comparatively  few  originals  and  the 
great  wealth  of  Roman  copies ;  also  of  inscriptions,  vase 
paintings,  terra  cottas,  coins,  and  other  objects,  on  which 
the  original  statues  were  either  mentioned  or  repro- 
duced. The  literary  sources  include  all  the  references 
to  art  contained  in  ancient  literature.  Some  men,  like 
Pliny  the  Elder  (died  a.d.  79)  and  Pausanias  (second 
century),  wrote  of  art;  others  simply  made  incidental 
references  to  illustrate  their  thoughts.  Great  care  must 
therefore  be  exercised  in  using  the  criticisms  of  the 
ancients,  especially  since  the  writers  are  not  all  equally 
trustworthy.  Many  statements,  of  course,  were  based 
on  contemporaneous  and  reliable  authors  whose  writ- 
ings are  now  lost;  but  since  few  of  the  Romans  fol- 
lowed the  practice  of  Pliny,  who  frequently  cited  his 


Bronze  Figure  from  a  vShipwrecked  Roman  Cargo 
(Athens) 


SOURCES  OF  KNOWLEDGE 


lOI 


authorities,  it  is  at  times  impossible  to  distinguish  be- 
tween the  inaccurate  Roman  notions  and  the  often 
correct  ideas  quoted  from  older  Greek  writers. 

This  confused  state  of  the  literary  sources,  together 
with  their  importance,  is  largely  responsible  for  the  fact 
that  the  subject  has  been  for  almost  a  century  exclu- 
sively in  the  hands  of  the  archaeologists  and  philologists, 
and  so  lost  to  the  general  public.  Without  the  untir- 
ing labor  of  these  men  it  would  even  now  be  impossible 
to  draw  definite  conclusions;  yet  their  knowledge  con- 
cerns for  the  most  part  what  may  be  called  the  grammar 
of  art.  There  is  a  vast  difference  between  studying 
a  language  grammatically  and  entering  into  the  spirit 
of  its  literature.  Literary  disquisitions  are  impossible 
without  the  preliminary  and  accurate  knowledge  of 
grammar,  but  the  mere  matter-of-fact  interest  in  the 
linguistic  peculiarities  of  a  language  is  always  detri- 
mental to  the  comprehension  of  the  thoughts  expressed 
in  its  literature.  Ancient  art  in  the  same  way  must, 
in  spite  of  much  serious  study,  remain  a  closed  book 
to  all  who  do  not  go  beyond  the  facts,  to  all  who  refuse 
to  look  for  the  spirit  and  the  principles  of  Greek 
sculpture. 


Part  Two 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  FIRST  attempts:  IN  THE  ROUND 

The  first  Greek  to  carve  a  statue  worthy  the  name  was, 
according  to  tradition,  Daidalos,  —  that  is,  translated, 
"the  Skillful."  All  legends  of  miraculous  skill  were 
gathered  around  him ;  "  his  statues  saw  and  walked, 
and,  in  a  word,  exercised  all  the  bodily  functions." 
The  Greeks  were  ever  impatient  of  abstract  and  unat- 
tached ideas!  A  man  named  Daidalos  may  actually 
have  lived,  and  in  that  case  a  little  bronze  statuette  of 
Artemis  in  Boston,  dedicated  to  the  "  Daidaleian,"  may 
repeat  one  of  his  types.  The  word  "  Daidaleian,"  how- 
ever, is  possibly  merely  an  epithet  of  the  goddess,  "  the 
skillful  Artemis,"  bearing  no  reference  to  the  tradi- 
tional name  of  the  first  sculptor.  This  is  the  more 
likely  to  be  the  case  since  none  of  the  literary  refer- 
ences to  Daidalos  are  proven  to  be  more  than  records 
of  myths.  He  himself  is  now  generally  believed  to  be 
a  creation  of  fiction.  His  reputed  pupils  and  contem- 
poraries, however,  are,  at  least  in  part,  real  characters; 

103 


I04  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

for  the  names  of  some  of  them  have  been  found  inscribed 
on  stone  in  several  places. 

Ready  Exchange  of  Artistic  Ideals 

The  wide  range  of  territory  covered  by  these  places 
gives  an  excellent  idea  of  the  extensive  intercourse  and 
the  ready  exchange  of  artistic  ideals  in  earliest  Greece. 
Literary  tradition  points  in  the  same  direction.  The 
Athenian  Daidalos  founded  —  so  the  story  goes  —  a 
school  of  sculpture  in  Crete.  His  pupils  worked  in 
Crete,  Rhodes,  Ambracia,  and  in  the  Peloponnesos ; 
others  again  in  Athens,  Ephesos,  Arcadia,  Samos,  and 
Lemnos ;  and  artists  of  the  separate  and  rival  schools  of 
Samos  and  Chios  covered  the  land  from  Ephesos  to 
Naukratis  in  Egypt  and  back  again  to  Athens.  In  Bceo- 
tia  a  grave  stele  was  found  which  was  made  by  Alxenor 
of  Naxos ;  and  several  fragments,  from  the  Akropolis  in 
Athens  show  such  marked  differences  from  the  native 
Athenian  style,  and  are  so  much  like  works  found  in 
Samos  and  in  Boeotia,  that  the  conclusion  is  inevitable 
that  they  were  either  imported  into  Athens  from  the 
outside  or  were  made  in  Athens  by  foreign  sculptors. 

The  Dorian  and  the  Ionian  Schools 
Indistinguishable 

Such  observations  show  the  futility  of  the  attempt 
of  dividing  what  is  left  of  Greek  art  before  the  Per- 
sian wars  into  two  large  classes,  —  the  Dorian  and  the 


THE  FIRST  ATTEMPTS:  IN  THE  ROUND 


Ionian.  These  two  branches  of  the  Greek  race,  it  is 
often  believed,  were  fundamentally  different  in  charac- 
ter and  disposition.  The  Dorian  mountain  shepherds 
and  farmers  were  slow,  conservative,  honest,  gifted  with 
beautiful  bodies  and  careful  to  preserve  their  usefulness. 
The  Ionian  city  folk,  traders  and  merchants,  were  pro- 
gressive, restless,  of  an  "  intense  intellectual  curiosity," 
of  laxer  morals,  and  fond  of  luxurious  drapery.  Such 
fundamental  differences  in  character  one  would  think 
ought  to  be  reflected  in  the  sculpture  of  the  people. 
This  is,  however,  rarely  the  case.  In  the  first  place, 
the  ready  intercourse  tended  to  even  up  differences; 
and  in  the  second,  neither  the  sternest  Dorians  nor 
the  most  luxuriant  lonians  were  apt  to  create  great 
artists.  The  best  plan,  therefore,  is  to  look  upon  the 
older  works  as  a  joint  expression  of  all  the  Greeks, 
showing  at  times  it  is  true  different  tendencies,  as 
either  the  Dorian  or  the  Ionian  side  of  the  artist  pre- 
ponderated, but  on  the  whole  tending  all  toward  one 
great  end,  —  mastery  over  the  material  and  clearer 
expression  of  more  definite  conceptions. 

The  "Hera"  of  Samos 

One  of  the  earliest  statues  worthy  of  description 
was  found  in  Samos,  where  it  had  been  dedicated  to 
Hera  by  a  woman  named  Cheramyes.  The  statue, 
page  1 06,  now  headless,  may  or  may  not  represent  Hera 
herself.    In  the  absence,  however,  of  a  better  name  it  is 


io6 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


most  readily  referred  to  as  the  "  Hera "  of  Samos.  It 
would  not  do  to  be  too  particular  in  the  designation  of 
many  of  these  early  creations.  If  it  is  once  understood 
that  the  accuracy  of  the  names  cannot  be  established, 
no  harm  is  done;  and  the  advantage  of  a  distinguish- 
ing nomenclature  is  so  great  that  it  outweighs  all 
contrary  considerations. 

The  "  Hera  "  of  Samos  is  carved  from  a  circular  block 
tapering  toward  the  base,  much  like  the  column  between 
the  lionesses  over  the  gate  of  Mycenae,  PL  IV,  Fig.  i. 
The  shape  being  given,  the  artist  had  to  design  his 
figure  within  its  limits.  This  has  hampered  him  in 
carving  the  right  arm.  He  also  desired  to  have  some 
variety,  and  that  accounts  for  the  position  of  the  left 
arm.^  The  anatomy  here  is  fairly  well  understood ;  one 
feels  through  the  drapery  the  softness  of  the  biceps 
and  its  surrounding  parts,  the  turn  at  the  elbow,  and 
the  tendons  running  down  toward  the  hand.  The 
man  who  knew  how  to  carve  all  this  chafed  under  the 
restraint  of  space,  and  made  at  least  the  attempt  to 
explain  the  compression  of  the  upper  right  arm  where 
it  ought  to  project,  by  having  the  figure  stretch  it 
down  with  all  her  might.  This,  however,  led  him  into 
another  difficulty:  such  muscular  action  ought  to  be 
explained  by  the  character  or  by  the  momentary  state 

1  The  descriptions  are  made  from  the  original  statues,  or,  in  a  few 
instances,  from  their  casts.  They  often  include,  therefore,  details  which 
are  lost  in  photographs. 


"  Hera  "  of  Samos 
(Louvre) 


THE  FIRST  ATTEMPTS:  IN  THE  ROUND  107 

of  mind  of  the  person.  But  that,  of  course,  was  beyond 
this  early  artist's  means. 

The  figure  itself,  though  unmistakably  a  woman,  is 
carved  in  its  lower  half,  where  the  original  shape  of  the 
block  permitted  no  freedom  of  action,  in  a  rather  non- 
descript fashion.  The  projecting  feet  and  the  drapery 
curving  over  them  are  its  best  parts.  It  is  easy  to 
imagine  the  actual  shape  of  the  feet,  even  where  they 
are  not  seen;  they  are  suggested.  Quite  unknown  to 
himself  the  artist  has  stumbled  on  one  of  the  impor- 
tant principles  of  art,  —  that  the  spectator  can  be 
impressed  as  much  by  those  lines  and  masses  that  are 
suggested  as  by  those  that  are  represented.  If  the 
artist  of  the  "  Hera "  had  known  this,  he  would  have 
given  his  figure  a  better  lower  half  in  spite  of  the 
shape  of  the  block.  As  it  is,  he  has  carved  something 
that,  if  broken,  never  would  impress  one  as  a  part  of  a 
human  body.  To  make  up  for  this  lack  of  life  the 
drapery  has  been  delicately  treated ;  so  delicately,  in 
fact,  that  no  photograph  renders  it  adequately.  "  Hera  " 
was  draped  in  two  garments;  some  say  three  or  more, 
but  that  is  a  mistake  due  to  the  fact  that  the  artist  left 
the  distinguishing  part  to  the  painter.  The  different 
surfaces  and  folds  are  intended  to  bring  pleasing  variety 
into  the  composition,  but  not  one  is  an  actual  copy  or 
adaptation  of  nature.  The  artist  carved  what  he  thought 
was  a  drapery,  without  checking  the  accuracy  of  his  con- 
ception by  any,  even  the  hastiest,  observation  of  nature. 


io8 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


This  lack  of  nature  study  is  characteristic  of  the  entire 
figure.  "  Hera's  "  proportions  are  anatomically  impos- 
sible; in  the  back,  where  the  garments  are  represented 
tightly  gathered  about  the  body,  their  inaccuracy  is  espe- 
cially noticeable.  Unable  to  carve  a  draped  figure  that 
would  show  the  drapery  and  suggest  the  living  body,  the 
artist  hit  upon  this  means  of  displaying  the  nicety  of  the 
drapery  in  front  and  of  revealing  the  body  in  the  back. 

With  all  its  shortcomings,  there  is  a  truly  noble  and 
undeniable  grandeur  about  the  statue.  Winckelmann 
says,  "  If  you  want  to  judge  of  a  work  of  art,  disregard 
at  first  what  is  clamouring  for  attention  in  it  because  of 
the  diligent  labor  and  the  skill  of  the  artist;  be  rather 
concerned  with  that  part  of  it  which  is  the  creation 
of  intelligence";  or,  "If  it  is  a  primitive  work  of  art," 
he  might  have  added,  "be  not  disturbed  by  the  lack 
of  skill,  but  look  for  the  conception."  This  precept 
of  Winckelmann  is  as  accurate  as  it  is  (especially  for 
the  student  of  early  Greek  sculpture)  difficult  to  follow. 
The  mistakes  there  are  patent,  sometimes  exciting  the 
spectator's  mirth,  so  that  it  is  surely  not  easy  to  pene- 
trate to  the  nobility  of  the  conception.  Patient  endeavor 
in  this  direction,  however,  and  continuous  practice  are 
sure  to  lead  to  the  desired  result. 

Great  assistance  is  derived  from  the  study  of  those 
statues  which  show  the  development  of  the  same  type, 
because  they  reveal  what  the  artists  endeavored  to  do. 
The  gradual  development  of  the  draped  female  figure, 


THE  ''APOLLO"  STATUES  109 

for  instance,  the  mastery  over  the  material  slowly  and 
painfully  obtained  by  constant  practice,  and  the  grow- 
ing facility  of  expression  are  advantageously  studied  in  a 
series  of  statues  excavated  in  Athens  some  twenty  years 
ago.  A  draped  figure,  however,  offers  a  double  prob- 
lem to  the  sculptor,  —  the  body  and  the  garment.  It 
is  easier,  therefore,  to  follow  this  progress  in  art,  step 
by  step,  in  the  male  figures,  which  with  few  exceptions 
are  nude.  The  large  majority  of  these  male  figures 
were  found  in  sanctuaries  of  Apollo;  wherefore  all  of 
them  go  by  the  name  of  this  god,  though  many  may 
be  intended  to  represent  mortals. 

The  "Apollo"  Statues 

The  original  shape  of  the  block  for  these  statues 
was,  it  seems,  always  regular,  either  square  or  cylin- 
drical, often  tapering,  but  never  especially  adapted  to 
the  design.  On  the  contrary,  the  design  had  to  be 
adapted  to  the  block.  One  may  call  this  a  convention, 
or  a  custom,  or  a  fancy ;  the  fact  remains  that  for  several 
generations  such  a  restriction  was  tolerated,  though  all 
manner  of  means  were  devised  to  make  it  less  patent. 
The  adherence  to  some  customary  practice  is  a  char- 
acteristic sign  of  this  period.  The  customs  were  iron- 
clad. It  seems  never  to  have  occurred  to  the  artists 
that  they  were  of  their  own  making  and  could  be  dis- 
regarded with  impunity.  As  long  as  they  lasted  they 
were  as  confining,  in  their  field,  as  the  boundaries  of 


no 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  country  were,  before  the  Persian  wars,  for  Httle 
Greece,  constantly  threatened  by  the  barbarians,  with 
all  the  chaos  that  this  name  implied. 

One  of  the  earliest  "  Apollos,"  PI.  IV,  Fig.  3,  was 
found  on  the  island  of  Thera.  The  arms  cling  to  the 
sides  very  straight ;  they  push  down  with  muscular  force 
in  order  to  keep  within  the  confines  of  the  block;  only 
at  the  elbows  they  are  detached,  but  as  slightly  as  pos- 
sible. The  artist  was  apparently  afraid  they  might  break 
off  unless  fastened  to  the  side  of  the  body.  Looking, 
however,  along  the  whole  row  of  these  "Apollos,"  one 
notices  how  with  every  subsequent  attempt  the  sculp- 
tor dared  a  little  more  and  a  little  more,  until  in  the 
"Apollo  "  of  Tenea,  page  80,  the  entire  arm  was  carved 
free,  and  only  the  hands  were  secured  by  keeping  a 
small  bridge  between  them  and  the  thighs.  What  a 
tremendous  achievement  this  was  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  earlier  sculptor!  How  could  a  man  dare 
to  brave  the  fitful  fancies  of  brittle  marble !  But  it 
was  done,  and  soon  more  was  done.  In  the  Strang- 
ford  "  Apollo,"  PI.  IV,  Fig.  2,  even  the  bridges  have 
disappeared.  The  arms  once  hung  loose  from  the 
shoulders ;  now  they  are  broken  and  lost,  —  the  artist 
of  Thera  would  say  as  a  just  punishment  for  the  man 
who  was  too  bold.  Who  can  tell  how  many  blocks 
were  spoiled  by  daring  too  much  before  the  conviction 
took  hold  of  the  artists  that  it  could  be  done,  and  there- 
fore must  be  done!    In  this  entire  period  of  struggle 


CLEAR  THINKING 


III 


with  the  material  one  does  not  find  a  single  retrograde 
movement,  however  impossible  it  must  have  seemed  at 
times  to  accomplish  anything  better  than  what  had 
already  been  achieved ;  for  the  Greek  artist  was  like 

One  who  never  turned  his  back,  but  marched  breast  forward, 
Never  doubted. 

Success  due  to  Much  Clear  Thinking 

His  victory  over  the  material  was  slow  compared 
with  the  advance  made  by  his  successor  in  the  fifth 
and  the  fourth  century,  but  it  was  sure.  He  won  it 
by  much  clear  thinking.  Concluding  what  could  be 
done  and  what  could  not  be  done,  he  strove  to  perfect 
the  one  and  did  not  trouble  about  the  other.  He  was 
even  willing,  when  the  exigencies  of  the  case  demanded 
it,  to  give  up  his  own  better  understanding.  An  excel- 
lent instance  of  this  is  found  in  the  treatment  of  the 
hands  in  the  "Apollo"  statues.  As  long  as  the  arms 
and  hands  of  these  statues  were  actually  attached  to 
the  sides,  except  for  a  space  near  the  elbows,  the  nat- 
ural continuation  of  the  lines  of  the  forearms  were  the 
thumbs.  They  were  therefore  carved  lying  close  to 
the  leg.  But  this  gave  rise  to  the  problem  of  dispos- 
ing of  the  fingers.  The  most  natural  thing  was  to 
make  a  closed  fist  of  the  hand.  In  such  a  case,  how- 
ever, as  every  one  can  see  by  trying  the  experiment, 
either  the  last  joints  of  the  thumb  and  forefinger  pro- 
ject, or,  if  the  tips  of  the  thumb  and  forefinger  are 


112 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


brought  together,  several  angles  result  in  the  fist  in- 
stead of  a  small  triangle.  The  latter  alternative  was 
very  undesirable  because  of  the  great  space  which 
would  have  to  be  cut  out  between  the  thumb  and  the 
forefinger,  so  that  the  hand,  according  to  the  early 
notions,  would  have  lacked  in  stability;  while  the  other 
possibility,  of  the  projecting  joints,  was  for  technical 
reasons  equally  distasteful  to.  the  artist.  The  only  way 
out  of  this  difficulty  was  for  him  to  carve  an  inaccurate 
hand.  He  joined  thumb  and  forefinger  at  the  tips,  and 
made  of  the  thumb  the  hypothenuse  of  a  small  triangle, 
the  apex  of  which  was  the  knuckle  of  the  forefinger. 
Was  the  artist  satisfied  with  this  device?  Not  a  whit; 
for  as  soon  as  he  knew  a  different  solution  he  adopted 
it.  It  came  to  him  in  the  natural  development  of 
his  skill.  When  in  the  "Apollo"  of  Tenea,  page  80, 
he  detached  the  entire  arm  from  the  body,  and  even 
removed  the  thumbs  from  the  side,  leaving  only  a  thin 
connecting  ridge,  he  not  only  had  found  the  space  for 
the  projecting  joint  of  the  forefinger,  but  also  had 
learned  that  marble  has  sufficient  coherence  to  per- 
mit the  detachment  of  such  small  parts.  Up  to  the 
"Apollo"  of  Tenea  all  the  statues  show  the  inaccurate 
hands ;  after  him  they  cannot  be  found  in  a  single  one. 

It  is  useless  to  point  out  all  such  details  by  which 
the  very  gradual  progress  of  early  Greek  sculpture  can 
be  followed.  There  are  the  arms,  the  hands,  the  heads ; 
for  they  also  at  first  had  to  be  supported.    How  was 


ACCURATE  CONCEPTIONS  113 

it  possible  that  the  thin  column  of  the  neck  could  hold 
up  the  heavy  weight  of  the  head !  The  hair,  therefore, 
hung  down  the  neck,  long  and  loose.  This  is  still  the 
case  in  the  Tenean  statue.  In  the  Strangford  "Apollo  " 
it  is  taken  up  so  that  the  head  rests  proudly  on  the 
neck  without  any  outside  support.  This  advance  in 
skill  was  made  before  the  fashion  of  the  youths  had 
changed  to  trimming  their  hair  short.  This  "Apollo" 
is  represented  with  long  hair  done  up  in  tresses  and 
taken  up  to  be  fastened  about  his  head. 

Growth  of  Accurate  Conceptions 

Together  with  the  growing  skill,  an  advance  in  accu- 
racy of  conception  can  be  noted.  The  body  of  a  man 
at  first  consisted  for  the  Greeks  largely  of  its  outlines, 
which  enclosed  a  few  indistinct  masses.  Later  the 
mental  images  of  the  people,  sharpened  by  expression, 
took  in  more  of  the  peculiar  quality  of  these  masses, 
which  are  not  of  uniform  consistency  but  contain  flesh 
and  bone.  In  the  "Apollo"  of  Orchomenos,  PI.  IV, 
Fig.  4,  which  is  in  many  ways  still  very  crude,  the 
abdominal  muscles  below  the  skin  are  distinctly  felt. 
The  first  great  improvement  is  seen  in  the  "Apollo" 
of  Tenea.  His  breasts,  thighs,  and  calves  are  wonder- 
ful creations  for  a  man  who  did  not  yet  dare  to  do 
away  with  the  support  of  the  hair  for  the  head;  and 
the  knees  are  little  short  of  marvelous.  The  trunk 
itself,  to  be  sure,  is  still  an  unshapen  mass,  reminding 


114 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


one  not  improperly  of  the  "Hera"  of  Samos.  All  this 
is  changed  in  the  Strangford  "Apollo,"  PI.  IV,  Fig.  2. 
Here  the  muscles  over  the  ribs  are  felt  with  a  dis- 
tinctness which  almost  tempts  a  curious  touch  to  count 
them,  and  that,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  are  far 
from  accurate,  as  even  the  most  casual  comparison  with 
a  living  model  can  teach. 

The  anatomy  of  all  the  "Apollos"  is  faulty.  The 
earliest  are  designed  only  for  a  front  view.  The  sides 
and  back  are  merely  the  necessary  accompaniment 
of  the  execution  in  the  round,  and  simply  the  crudest 
endeavors  are  made  to  join  them  with  the  front  to  a 
whole.  Gradually  they  are  treated  with  more  distinct- 
ness. In  the  "Apollo"  of  Tenea  four  views  are  carefully 
wrought,  —  the  front,  the  back,  and  the  two  sides.  But 
they  are  only  put  together,  and  do  not,  as  is  the  case 
in  nature,  grow  together.  The  Strangford  "Apollo"  is 
really  the  first  statue  in  the  round  deserving  the  name, 
even  in  its  most  modest  application;  for  he  also  is 
designed  for  the  straight  front  plane.  It  is  a  difficult 
task  to  imagine  a  real  body  of  three  dimensions  in  full 
freedom  of  action  in  unlimited  space.  The  early  Greek 
artists  had  not  advanced  to  this  stage,  luckily  for  them ; 
for  the  future  showed  that  it  took  two  more  centuries 
of  incessant  activity  before  Greek  skill  had  learned  to 
grapple  with  this  problem. 


WALKING  ATTITUDE 


"5 


The  Pose  of  the  ''Apollo  "  Statues 

The  "Apollos"  are  often  called  standing  figures. 
They  are,  however,  doubtless  imagined  as  walking. 
Only  in  walking  is  the  muscle  over  the  knee  as 
prominent  as  it  is  carved  by  the  early  artists,  and  as 
it  is  best  seen  in  the  Tenean  figure.  When  one  is 
at  rest  the  muscle  is  all  but  unnoticed.  The  military 
step  begins  with  the  left,  and  practically  all  Europeans 
even  to-day  take  the  first  step  with  this  foot.  These 
"Apollos,"  therefore,  are  probably  represented  as  begin- 
ning to  walk.  When  Polykleitos,  a  century  later,  carved 
a  walking  figure  in  progress,  PI.  XXII,  Fig.  i,  he 
advanced  the  right  leg,  perhaps  in  order  to  show  that 
his  athlete  was  not  taking  his  first  step.  Both  feet 
in  walking  are  never  firmly  planted  on  the  ground  at 
the  same  time,  as  is  the  case  with  these  statues.  The 
"Apollo"  artists,  of  course,  did  not  dare  to  be  accurate 
in  this  respect.  It  was  bold  enough  to  support  the 
whole  figure  on  only  two  thin  legs;  these  at  least 
would  have  to  form  substantial  props.  With  a  great 
deal  of  unwillingness,  therefore,  we  may  be  sure  they 
made  this  additional  allowance  to  the  heaviness  of 
their  material  and  to  their  own  failing  skill. 

In  a  very  awkward  way  of  walking,  it  is  true,  one  may 
manage  to  keep  both  feet  on  the  ground  simultaneously 
for  an  instant.  This  was  the  style,  it  has  been  sug- 
gested, that  the  ancients,  feeling  unable  to  do  justice 


Il6  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

to  the  other,  chose  to  represent.  To  believe  this  is  to 
credit  the  early  Greeks  with  a  more  accurate  obser- 
vation of  nature  than  seems  to  have  been  theirs.  It 
is  much  more  probable  that  the  muscles  prominent 
over  both  knees  were  due  to  the  haziness  of  their 
notions.  They  knew  that  in  walking  these  muscles 
are  used,  and  had  not  learned  from  observation  that 
they  are  put  into  play  alternately.  This  probably  is 
the  correct  explanation,  although  there  is  still  another, 
which  is  based  on  a  peculiarity  of  representation  some- 
times noticed  on  vase  paintings,  where  successive  move- 
ments are  represented  as  simultaneous.  In  walking 
both  muscles  would  eventually  be  put  in  use, — the  left 
in  the  step  actually  represented,  the  right  in  the  step 
to  be  imagined.  In  order  to  assist  the  imagination 
of  this  step,  which  could  not  actually  be  shown,  the 
muscle  of  the  right  leg  was  prominently  introduced 
before  its  proper  time  for  action  had  arrived.  Which 
one  of  these  several  ideas  was  in  the  mind  of  the 
artists,  it  is  impossible  to  determine.  Whatever  it  was, 
the  attempt  to  show  a  walking  figure  rather  than  a 
standing  one  seems  to  account  for  the  peculiar  inac- 
curacies in  the  anatomy  of  the  "Apollo"  statues. 

The  Problem  of  Motion  in  Sculpture 

This  is  in  keeping  with  the  observation  that  our 
mental  images  of  living  bodies  are  less  generally  con- 
cerned with  them  at  rest  than  in  motion,  either  moving 


PROBLEM  OF  MOTION  I17 

through  space,  with  the  lower  limbs  put  into  play,  or 
gesticulating,  with  the  arms  actively  engaged.  The 
material  itself  of  which  the  figures  are  carved  is 
stationary,  motionless;  so  that  the  difficult  problem 
arises,  —  how  to  express  thoughts  that  the  material 
does  not  permit  to  be  represented.  Before  the  sculp- 
tors advanced  to  a  clear  understanding  of  this  propo- 
sition they  had  to  learn  by  experience  that  there  are 
no  ways  of  actually  representing  motion,  —  that  it  can 
only  be  suggested.  The  early  Greeks,  it  seems,  were 
still  hoping  for  a  different  solution.  They  were  the 
slaves  of  the  material,  many  possibilities  of  which  they 
still  had  to  discover.  Motion  they  apparently  believed 
to  be  one  of  them.  Attempt  after  attempt,  therefore, 
was  made,  each  one  improving  on  the  preceding,  but 
every  one  falling  short  of  success,  until  the  real  solution 
came  to  the  Greeks  in  a  way  entirely  different  from  that 
which  they  had  expected. 

The  Flying  Figure  from  Delos 

One  of  the  most  interesting  attempts  at  rapid  move- 
ment is  found  in  a  flying  figure  from  Delos,  PI.  V, 
Fig.  I,  erroneously  called  the  Nike  of  Delos.  The 
statue  probably  commemorates  the  somewhat  Oriental 
conception  of  the  winged  Artemis,  the  sister  of  the 
patron  god  of  Delos,  Apollo.  In  later  times  this  god- 
dess was  thought  of  without  wings,  and  since  Nike,  the 
goddess  of  victory,  and  Eros,  the  god  of  love,  were  the 


ii8 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


only  Greek  gods  which  continued  to  be  represented 
with  wings,  the  early  statues  of  Artemis  and  those  of 
Nike  were  often  confused. 

Not  far  from  the  place  where  the  Delian  statue  was 
discovered,  a  broken  base  was  found  containing,  if  prop- 
erly restored,  the  names  of  Mikkiades  and  Archermos, 
two  sculptors  of  the  old  traditional  school  of  Chios.  The 
statue  and  the  base,  contrary  to  popular  notion,  do  not 
belong  together.  Their  peculiar  shapes,  however,  seem 
to  indicate  that  the  base  once  contained  a  statue  of 
much  the  same  design  as  the  extant  figure.  This,  taken 
together  with  an  ancient  passage  in  which  Archermos  is 
credited  with  having  been  perhaps  the  first  to  repre- 
sent Nike  winged,  may  be  understood  to  mean  that  the 
Archermos  type  of  statue  is  preserved  in  the  Delian 
figure. 

Though  badly  broken,  the  statue  is  readily  restored. 
The  lines  of  the  right  leg  are  apparent,  and  those  of 
the  left  can  be  made  out  from  the  fracture.  The 
goddess  was  practically  kneeling  on  the  left  knee,  with 
the  lower  half  of  the  leg  projecting  at  a  right  angle. 
The  drapery  continued  below  the  body,  forming  the 
material  support  of  the  statue,  while  the  body  itself, 
by  this  means  raised  from  the  base,  was  thought  of  as 
swinging  in  mid  air ;  only  the  toes  of  the  left  foot  prob- 
ably touched  the  base.  The  half-kneeling  position  of 
the  figure  is  in  keeping  with  extant  vase  paintings  and 
reliefs,  where  rapid  movement,  generally  running,  is 


FLYING  FIGURE  Hg 

similarly  represented.  The  artists  had  noticed  that  in 
running  the  legs  are  bent  more  at  the  knee  than  in  walk- 
ing, and  had  remembered  this  peculiarity,  utterly  disre- 
garding its  merely  momentary  occurrence.  The  French 
figure  of  speech,  "to  take  one's  legs  under  one's  arms," 
prendre  les  jambes  sous  les  bras,  is  based  on  much  the 
same  observation.  This  particular  statue  was  not  run- 
ning, but  was  flying;  wings,  therefore,  now  almost  com- 
pletely lost,  were  attached  on  the  shoulders  —  both  on 
the  back  and  over  the  breast — and  at  the  feet.  The 
left  arm  was  bent  almost  at  right  angles  to  conform  to 
the  action  of  the  legs,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  pre- 
served upper  arm  and  the  hand.  The  position  of  the 
right  arm  is  less  certain;  perhaps  it  followed  the  direc- 
tion of  the  outstretched  wings  to  the  right. 

The  twist  of  the  figure  at  the  waist  is  an  indication 
of  the  inaccuracy  of  the  artist's  conception.  For  tech- 
nical reasons  he  designed  the  legs  in  profile  and  the 
face  en  face.  To  the  easy  connection,  however,  which 
in  nature  exists  between  the  upper  and  the  lower  halves 
of  the  body,  he  was  unable  to  do  justice,  putting  the 
two  parts  of  his  statue  together,  irrespective  of  the 
natural  curves  of  actual  life. 

The  tightly  fitting  garment,  revealing  the  fullness  of 
the  female  body,  was  originally  elaborately  decorated 
in  colors.  On  the  statue  itself  this  can  even  now  be 
seen,  because  the  different  layers  of  paint  have  left 
their  traces  in  slight  differences  of  corrosion.  Another 


I20 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


gorgeous  pattern  probably  ran  down  the  broad  stripe  of 
the  drapery  between  the  legs.  Similar  stripes  occur  on 
the  better  preserved  figures  from  Athens,  PI.  VIII,  Fig.  3, 
which  have  retained  their  elaborate  decoration.  The 
spare  treatment  of  the  garment  over  the  breasts,  in  its 
present  colorless  state,  may  suggest  that  the  artist  here 
had  been  thinking  of  the  nude.  This  is,  however,  not 
the  case,  as  a  comparison  of  this  part  with  the  wonder- 
ful treatment  of  the  muscular  nude  right  leg  conclu- 
sively proves. 

The  conception  of  this  leg  is  another  allowance 
made  to  the  idea  of  rapid  motion.  Many  Greek  gar- 
ments were  open  on  one  side,  so  that  in  running  the 
leg  was  apt  to  become  visible.  The  same  motive  was 
used  about  a  century  later  by  Paionios  in  his  Nike 
for  Olympia,  PI.  V,  Fig.  3. 

The  crude  twist  of  the  body  and  the  reference  to 
Archermos,  who  until  the  discovery  of  the  statue  was 
believed  to  be  one  of  the  half  mythical  and  therefore 
very  old  sculptors,  are  responsible  for  the  almost  uni- 
versal mistake  of  dating  this  figure  early  in  the  sixth 
century,  —  that  is,  almost  contemporaneous  with  the 
earliest  "Apollos."  The  very  daring  conception,  how- 
ever, of  a  flying  figure  in  stone,  and  the  advanced  skill 
in  grappling  with  its  representation  suggest  a  later  date. 
This  becomes  a  certainty  when  one  compares  the  hair 
of  this  figure  with  that  of  the  series  of  statues  from  the 
Akropolis,  PI.  IX,  Figs.  3,  4,  PI.  VIII,  Figs,  i,  2,  3,  and 


THE  FIRST  ATTEMPTS:  IN  THE  ROUND  121 

page  144.  The  latest  of  them,  it  is  generally  conceded, 
is  about  contemporaneous  with  the  Persian  wars,  while 
the  earlier  may  have  been  made  during  the  reign  of 
Peisistratos  (560-527  b.c).  Three  braids  falling  over 
the  shoulder  is  the  rule  with  most  of  them,  four  braids 
only  with  the  later;  and  while  the  hair  over  the  fore- 
head is  at  first  arranged  in  parallel  rows,  it  gradually 
becomes  of  greater  variety,  until  toward  the  end  of 
the  series  it  sometimes  loses  all  semblance  of  hair 
and  curls,  and  is  arranged  in  spirals,  PL  IX,  Fig.  3. 
It  would  be  wrong  to  draw  definite  conclusions,  from 
a  comparison  of  the  Delian  figure  with  the  Akropolis 
statues,  as  to  its  exact  date;  the  styles  are  too  differ- 
ent. But  when  the  sculptors  all  over  Greece  were 
working  toward  the  same  goal,  such  correspondences 
as  are  found  in  the  carving  of  fantastic  spirals  rather 
than  of  at  least  seemingly  correct  curls,  cannot  be 
overlooked.  None  of  the  Akropolis  figures  exhibiting 
them  are  dated  much  before  500  b.c  The  artists  on 
the  islands  may  have  begun  earlier  or  later  than  the 
Athenians  to  imitate  existing  works  rather  than  to 
carve  their  own  conceptions,  but  no  one  will  believe 
that  they  anticipated  them  by  fully  a  century.  The 
generally  accepted  date  for  the  figure  from  Delos, 
therefore,  early  in  the  sixth  century,  is  untenable. 

The  flying  "  Artemis,"  instead  of  being  one  of  the 
earliest  attempts  at  sculpture  in  the  round,  belongs 
more  probably  to  the  end  of  this  first  period  of  historic 


122 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Greek  art.  One  is  astonished  at  the  skill  of  the  artist 
and  at  the  daring  of  his  conception.  Let  a  wave  of 
enthusiastic  love  for  freedom  in  the  spiritual  and  the 
material  world,  such  as  broke  in  Greece  after  the  Per- 
sian wars,  sweep  over  the  country,  and  the  successors  of 
the  Delian  artist  are  transformed  into  the  forerunners 
of  Pheidias. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


THE  FIRST  ATTEMPTS:  IN  RELIEF 

Some  assert,  but  without  sufficient  proof,  that  relief 
sculpture  in  the  evolution  of  art  holds  the  intermediate 
place  between  painting  and  sculpture  in  the  round. 
The  child  playing  with  his  paint  box  may  readily  be 
imagined  to  have  acquired  some  facility  in  drawing  and 
painting  before  he  feels  the  inclination,  or  the  need,  of 
giving  corporeal  forms  to  the  creations  of  his  fancy  ;  but 
it  is  a  question  whether  he  will  be  ahead  of  the  little 
girl  of  whom  Ruskin  writes,  who,  left  alone  with  some 
dough  in  her  mother's  kitchen,  made  of  it  not  pastry,  as 
she  was  expected  to  do,  but  cats  and  mice.  The  extant 
monuments  of  early  Greek  art  are  insufficient  to  per- 
mit a  definite  statement  in  this  respect,  nor  is  such  a 
statement  at  all  necessary;  for  whatever  the  origin  of 
relief  sculpture  was,  in  the  hands  of  the  Greeks  it  soon 
became  a  very  distinct  mode  of  art  expression.  Attempt 
after  attempt  was  made,  until  the  artists  finally  realized 
what  they  could  do  in  relief  and  what  they  properly 
could  not  do.  But  in  this  field  of  sculpture,  as  in  the 
other,  they  did  not  advance  to  the  clear  perception  of 
its  possibilities  until  their  horizon  had  widened  after 
the  Persian  wars. 

123 


124 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  very  earliest  reliefs  show  the  same  struggle 
with  the  obstinate  material  and  the  human  form  that 
was  noticed  in  the  round.  In  the  action  of  the  figures, 
to  be  sure,  they  permitted  greater  freedom,  because  an 
extended  arm,  for  instance,  or  a  flower  held  in  the  hand, 
can  be  attached  to  the  background  without  the  seeming 
danger  of  having  them  break  off.  More  telling  gestures 
and  better  poses  of  rapidly  walking  figures,  therefore, 
are  seen  on  reliefs  than  in  works  in  the  round  belong- 
ing to  the  same  stage  of  progress.  Relief  sculpture,  on 
the  other  hand,  presented  some  difficulties  unknown 
in  statues;  for  the  grouping  of  the  figures  and  the 
technique  of  carving  them  on  different  planes  had  to 
be  studied. 

The  Spartan  Tombstones 

One  of  the  several  ways  in  which  the  artists  tried  to 
solve  these  problems  may  be  seen  in  a  series  of  reliefs 
from  the  neighborhood  of  Sparta,  which  show  strong 
mutual  resemblances,  and  sufficient  differences  from 
other  known  works  to  allow  their  being  grouped  to- 
gether. They  doubtless  had  some  relation  to  funeral 
rites,  and  are  therefore  known  as  the  Spartan  tomb- 
stones. A  man  or  hero,  perhaps  the  dead,  is  sitting 
on  a  finely  carved  throne  on  one  of  these  tombstones, 
PI.  I,  Fig.  3.  He  is  benignly  looking  at  the  spectator. 
The  very  unnatural  twist  of  his  head,  since  neither 
his  body  nor  his  drapery  is  a  copy  from  nature,  is  less 


SPARTAN  TOMBSTONES  1 25 

noticeable  than  was  the  corresponding  twist  at  the  waist 
of  the  winged  figure  from  Delos,  whose  body  exhibited, 
in  every  other  way,  a  far  more  deHcate  conception  of 
nature.  The  folds  on  the  Spartan  relief,  which  are, 
when  analyzed,  no  folds  at  all,  are  yet  represented  with 
so  much  confident  naivete  that  they  are  almost  con- 
vincing. The  same  is  true  of  the  rest  of  the  composi- 
tion. The  right  shoulder  of  the  man  hardly  deserves 
that  name,  and  the  legs,  if  broken  off  from  below 
the  knees  to  the  ankles,  could  not  be  recognized 
as  such. 

Back  of  the  man,  perhaps  on  the  same  throne  but 
more  likely  on  a  separate  chair,  which  is  not  carved 
but  is  left  to  the  imagination,  his  wife  is  represented 
entirely  in  profile.  Having  thought  of  her  as  farther 
away  from  the  spectator,  the  early  artist,  unacquainted 
with  the  principles  of  relief  sculpture,  felt  obliged  to 
carve  her  on  a  more  remote  plane.  The  same  he 
did  with  most  parts  of  his  composition,  so  that  seven 
different  planes  may  be  distinguished.  The  man's  head 
and  right  arm  are  carved  on  the  front  plane,  his  body 
on  a  second  plane,  his  left  arm  on  one  still  farther 
removed,  and  so  on  to  the  left  arm  of  his  wife.  The 
composition,  however,  in  spite  of  the  careful  differen- 
tiation of  planes,  is  not  convincing ;  for,  owing  to  the 
comparative  flatness  of  the  relief,  the  artist  was  unable 
to  give  to  each  one  of  his  seven  planes  the  thickness 
required  by  nature;  so  that  the  insufficient  shadows 


126 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


which  one  plane  casts  upon  the  other  betray  the  inac- 
curacy of  the  whole.  It  was  failures  like  these  that 
taught  the  Greeks.  As  a  matter  of  fact  only  few  reliefs 
in  this  mistaken  technique  are  extant. 

From  the  peculiar  appearance  of  the  several  planes, 
sharply  separated  the  one  from  the  other,  many  have 
concluded  that  this  block  showed  the  effect  of  a  tech- 
nique of  wood  carving ;  this  is,  however,  by  no  means 
certain.  The  different  planes  are  more  probably  due 
to  the  endeavor  of  the  artist  to  put  into  practice  his 
own  mistaken  theories  of  relief  sculpture. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  grouping  this  relief  teaches 
the  lesson  that  even  the  early  artists  dreaded  empty 
spaces.  The  size  of  the  cup  is  entirely  out  of  pro- 
portion to  the  man  who  holds  it,  and  his  left  arm  is 
elongated  and  his  hand  overlarge  to  fill  what  otherwise 
would  have  been  an  empty  space. 

The  lines  of  the  composition  are  very  pleasing,  car- 
rying the  eye  readily  over  the  entire  block  without  any 
waste  of  energy.  The  furniture  is  beautiful,  the  lion's 
legs  carved  on  the  back  of  the  throne  being  well  able  to 
serve  as  models  for  the  most  refined  design.  The  faces 
of  the  figures,  unreal  though  they  are  (notice  the  eyes, 
and  the  roundness  of  the  chin  on  the  man),  are  in  lines 
and  masses  decidedly  pleasant.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see 
that  the  artist  believed  in  giving  pleasure  to  the  eye 
without  in  any  way  forgetting  his  duty  to  appeal  to  the 
higher  faculties  of  man.    The  modesty  of  the  woman. 


PERSPECTIVE  127 

just  on  the  point  of  drawing  her  veil  (once  painted) 
over  her  head,  and  the  attentive  readiness  of  the  hero, 
who  does  not  lean  back  in  his  chair  but  as  if  in  wel- 
come is  sitting  erect,  are  well  conceived  and  expressed. 
The  two  little  figures  of  worshipers  who  are  approach- 
ing with  their  offerings  are  clearly  and  simply  intro- 
duced. In  delineation,  however,  they  are  far  below 
the  cock  which  one  of  them  carries. 

Knowledge  of  Perspective 

The  very  small  size  of  these  figures  is  generally 
explained  as  indicative  of  their  insignificance  as  mor- 
tals compared  with  the  deified  dead.  This  is  of  course 
possible,  but  such  a  representation  in  stone  is,  to  say 
the  least,  rare  in  Greece.  The  tendency  of  having  all 
the  heads  of  the  figures  on  the  same  level  militated 
against  it,  and  the  mortals  who  advance  toward  the 
seated  gods  on  the  "Harpy"  tomb,  PI.  VI,  Figs,  i  to  4, 
are  drawn  across  the  entire  height  of  the  block.  The 
small  figures  in  the  Spartan  tombstone,  moreover,  are 
carved  on  the  farthest  planes,  and  not  only  on  a  higher 
level  than  the  feet  of  the  man  for  whom  their  gifts 
are  meant  but  also  themselves  uneven  in  height.  The 
questions,  therefore,  present  themselves  :  Had  this  early 
artist  definite  ideas  about  perspective  ?  Are  these  fig- 
ures drawn  on  different  levels  and  smaller  than  the 
rest  because  they  are  imagined  as  approaching  from  the 
distance  .f*    And  are  they  themselves  of  different  sizes 


128 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


because  they  are  thought  of  as  the  one  back  of  the 
other  ? 

Perspective  was  better  known  in  Greece  than  its  ab- 
sence in  extant  masterpieces  has  led  people  to  suppose. 
There  are  sufficient  references  in  literature  to  prove  its 
existence  in  painting.  Early  in  the  fifth  century  some 
of  the  tragedies  of  Aischylos  were  produced  with  painted 
stage  scenery,  which  of  course  is  incredible  without  the 
artist's  making  some  use  of  linear  perspective.  The 
absence  of  perspective  in  Greek  sculpture,  therefore,  is 
due  not  to  the  lack  of  knowledge  of  it  but  to  the  wise 
understanding  that  in  sculpture  it  is  out  of  place.  The 
artist  of  the  Spartan  tombstone,  proud  perhaps  of  a  dis- 
covery, may  have  endeavored  to  introduce  it.  It  was 
unsuccessful,  and  doomed,  like  the  artist's  receding 
planes,  to  disappear. 

Principle  of  Suggestion  Unknown 

One  more  deduction  can  be  made  from  this  relief  as 
to  the  understanding  or  the  misunderstanding  by  this 
artist  of  the  principles  of  sculpture.  Below  the  man's 
right  arm  the  woman's  right  hand  is  carved,  perhaps 
to  reveal  the  pomegranate  that  she  held  in  it.  But  her 
hand  does  not  belong  here.  We  cannot  see  a  hand 
without  having  it  suggest  the  lines  of  the  arm  or  the 
shoulder.  The  suggestion  here  is  wrong  because  it  dis- 
agrees with  those  lines  of  the  shoulder  that  are  indi- 
cated by  the  head  and  the  neck  of  the  woman.  This 


PRINCIPLE  OF  SUGGESTION  129 

confusion  the  artist  could  easily  have  avoided,  if  he  had 
been  aware  of  the  importance  of  suggested  lines,  by 
giving  the  hand  a  different  position.  The  present  posi- 
tion therefore  indicates  that  the  artist  was  not  familiar 
with  the  principle  of  suggestion. 

It  may  have  been  the  lack  of  success  of  this  and 
similar  reliefs  that  kept  the  early  Greeks  from  grap- 
pling with  problems  which  were  clearly  too  difficult  for 
them.  Few  artists,  therefore,  selected  subjects  which 
necessitated  the  doubling  up  of  figures.  Most  of  the 
early  reliefs,  both  high  and  low,  were  confined  to  com- 
positions developing  in  only  one  plane.  This  lessened 
the  technical  difficulties  and  allowed  the  artist  to  bestow 
his  entire  attention  on  the  grouping  of  his  figures  and 
their  composition  in  lines  and  masses.  A  fairly  early 
attempt  in  this  direction  is  found  on  the  slabs  which 
once  decorated  the  four  sides  of  a  tomb  near  Xanthos 
in  Lycia. 

The  "  Harpy  "  Monument 

The  frieze,  PI.  VI,  Figs,  i  and  2,  of  this  tomb  encircled 
the  pillar-shaped  monument  at  a  height  of  about  sixteen 
feet.  It  did  not  tell  a  continuous  story,  as  is  the  case 
on  the  Parthenon,  but  depicted  four  apparently  inde- 
pendent scenes  to  correspond  to  the  four  sides  of  the 
monument.  On  the  corners  of  the  shorter  north  and 
south  sides  fantastic  figures,  half  birds  half  women,  with 


I30 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


little  creatures  in  their  human  arms,  are  introduced. 
They  have  given  to  the  tomb  the  name  of  "  Harpy " 
monument ;  for  when  it  was  first  discovered  the  attempt 
was  made  to  explain  them  according  to  the  mythology 
of  the  mainland  of  Greece,  where  only  the  Sirens  and 
the  Harpies  were  known  to  have  been  thus  repre- 
sented. Neither  of  them,  however,  can  be  meant  here, 
for  the  Sirens  are  songsters  luring  their  victims  from 
afar  by  the  sweetness  of  their  voices,  and  the  Harpies 
are  grasping  spirits  of  filthy  and  unkind  habits.  The 
birds  on  this  tomb  are  gentle  spirits;  they  have  taken 
the  little  ones  kindly  in  their  arms  and  are  apparently 
well  liked  by  them.  This  is  seen  in  the  welcoming 
and  endearing  gestures  of  the  men  or  women  they 
hold.  Greek  sculpture  is  very  expressive,  and  gestures 
are  apt  to  have  their  definite  meaning.  A  similar  ges- 
ture of  affection  and  welcome  is  seen  on  a  tombstone, 
PI.  I,  Fig.  4  (once  called  the  Ino-Leukothea  relief),  where 
the  baby  is  approaching  her  mother. 

These  birds,  carved  on  a  tomb,  with  an  apparently 
mourning  figure  introduced  below  one  of  them  on  the 
north  side,  are  probably  representations  of  the  spirit  of 
death.  Perhaps  they  are  the  inventions  of  the  artist 
and  not  stable  characters  of  folklore;  for  on  another 
Lycian  tomb,  a  century  later,  other  fanciful  creatures 
were  represented,  —  the  "  Nereids,"  so  called  because 
they  are  seen  easily  skipping  over  the  water.  There 
is  doubtless  as  little  direct  connection  between  death 


PICTORIAL  ELEMENT  131 

and  the  "  Nereids  "  as  between  it  and  the  birds.  Both 
"  Nereids  "  and  birds  may  have  been  introduced  as  con- 
crete representations  of  the  abstract  idea  of  death  com- 
ing swiftly,  snatching  man  away  from  his  surroundings 
and  continuing  irretrievably  on  its  preordained  pathway. 
For  the  ancients  death  had  few  horrors,  appearing  to  be 
a  kind  spirit,  the  brother  of  sleep,  the  Healer.  This  may 
explain  the  happy  gestures  of  the  little  figures  which 
the  birds  are  carrying  away.  The  size  of  these  figures, 
which  has  been  called  ridiculously  small,  appears  so 
only  when  it  is  compared  with  that  of  the  people  in 
the  main  composition.  The  artist  apparently  held  that 
it  would  be  possible  to  look  at  every  part  of  his  reliefs 
separately. 

The  Pictorial  Element 

In  the  chief  groups  the  Lycian  sculptor  set  himself 
a  simple  task ;  in  the  four  corner  pieces  he  was  more 
ambitious.  He  wanted  one  to  imagine  unlimited  space 
in  which  the  birds  were  moving  with  outspread  wings 
and  inclined  bodies.  The  birds  are  seen  soaring  in  the 
air,  and  below  a  lonely  figure  is  mourning.  Such  a 
theme  is  too  complex  for  sculpture,  which  can  never 
do  it  justice.  The  painter  may  touch  on  things  above 
and  below;  the  sculptor,  dealing  in  corporeal  realities, 
must  confine  himself  to  the  tangible.  It  cannot  be 
denied  that  in  this  instance  the  Greek  sculptor  (Lycia 
for  all  practical  purposes  of  art  was  Greek)  has  scored 


132 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


a  fair  success.  His  successors,  nevertheless,  realizing 
that  in  these  groups  the  proper  sphere  of  sculpture 
was  transgressed,  refrained  from  going  farther  in  this 
direction.  The  pictorial  element  in  the  best  Greek 
reliefs  is  absent,  not  because  the  Greeks  had  not  yet 
"  advanced  to  conceive  of  it "  but  because  they  had 
found  it,  after  experimenting  with  it,  unsuited  to  the 
best  practices  of  their  art. 

The  Pose  Expressive  of  Character 

The  remaining  groups  of  these  reliefs  consist  of 
seated  figures  receiving  offerings  or  granting  favors. 
The  attitudes  of  the  seated  figures  seem  to  be  express- 
ive of  character,  just  as  they  are  on  the  Parthenon 
frieze,  where  Zeus  or  Athena  is  picked  out  with  little 
difficulty,  and  where  it  is  due  only  to  the  present  in- 
sufficient knowledge  of  the  characteristics  of  the  other 
gods  that  one  fails  to  recognize  all.  The  same  is  true 
of  these  reliefs.  We  do  not  know  the  Lycian  Pantheon, 
but  a  Lycian,  no  doubt,  was  familiar  with  the  bearded 
man  of  full  proportions  and  careless,  self-indulgent  de- 
meanor on  the  east  side,  or  the  straight,  dainty  god- 
desses in  their  kind  but  almost  haughty  attitude  on  the 
west.  The  appropriateness  of  the  several  interesting 
animals  is  to  us  as  little  clear  as  that  of  the  seated 
figures.  The  cock  in  the  hands  of  the  boy  vies  in  tell- 
ing contours  with  the  cock  on  the  Spartan  tombstone; 
and  the  pig  under  one  of  the  thrones,  and  especially 


CHARACTER  1 33 

the  sucking  calf  over  the  little  opening,  are  remarkable 
instances  of  animal  sculpture. 

The  chief  interest,  however,  attaches  to  the  human 
figures.  Their  heads,  with  the  exception  of  that  of  the 
boy  who  offers  the  cock,  are  all,  whether  the  people 
sit  or  stand,  on  practically  the  same  level.  The  result- 
ing incongruity  of  such  a  representation  is  cleverly 
disguised  by  having  the  seated  figures  apparently  rep- 
resent gods,  who  with  propriety  might  exhibit  super- 
human proportions.  The  different  sizes  of  the  figures, 
therefore,  do  not  impress  one  as  entirely  due  to  the 
restrictions  of  isokephalism,  as  was  the  case  in  Assos, 
PL  II,  Fig.  2,  but  to  some  extent  as  required  and  ex- 
plained by  the  composition.  The  artist  is  beginning 
to  be  master  over  his  material !  He  shows  this  also 
in  the  treatment  of  the  three  women  on  the  west  side. 
The  ease  with  which  the  folds  of  their  garments  are 
carved  and  the  textures  of  their  dresses  are  distin- 
guished, or  their  gestures  made  expressive,  and  their 
bodies  designed  to  show  through  their  closely  pulled 
garments,  is  admirable  notwithstanding  their  poor  state 
of  preservation.  In  the  drapery,  however,  the  artist 
gives  signs  of  the  customary  ignorance  of  the  principle 
of  suggested  lines.  No  drapery,  not  even  the  Greek, 
can  cling  to  the  body  so  closely  as  it  is  here  shown, 
especially  not  if  it  is  heavy  enough  to  fall  in  such 
prominent  folds.  The  back  contours  of  these  women, 
notably  those  of  the  one  nearest  to  the  goddess  to  the 


134 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


right,  reveal,  like  those  of  the  "  Hera  "  of  Samos,  almost 
every  line  of  the  nude  body;  while  in  front,  owing 
to  the  heavy  folds,  only  the  breasts  are  prominently 
seen ;  the  rest  is  —  suggested.  This,  however,  is  only 
an  accident.  It  probably  came  as  a  surprise  to  the 
artist  himself,  though  it  may  eventually  have  taught 
him  the  valuable  lesson  of  suggested  lines. 

Application  of  Suggested  Lines;  Reliefs  from 

Thasos 

One  of  the  first  successful  attempts  in  this  new  direc- 
tion is  a  relief  from  Thasos,  PL  VII,  Figs.  1-3,  now 
in  the  Louvre.  Its  comparatively  poor  state  of  pres- 
ervation, and  more  especially  the  unfavorable  light 
under  which  it  is  exhibited  in  Paris,  account  for  the 
neglect  with  which  it  has  been  treated  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  it  exhibits  some  of  the  most  beautiful  figures 
created  before  the  Persian  wars.  The  relief  was  prob- 
ably designed  to  decorate  the  entrance  of  a  sacred 
cave,  for  it  contains  two  inscriptions  in  early  charac- 
ters referring  to  sacrificial  rites.  Another  later  inscrip- 
tion, of  about  the  second  century  a.d.,  indicates  that  a 
gentleman  of  the  name  of  Aristokrates  appropriated 
the  slabs  for  the  decoration  of  his  tomb. 

The  relief  consists  of  three  slabs,  of  which  the  two 
smaller,  it  seems,  ought  to  be  joined  one  to  either  side 
of  the  larger.  The  composition  is  divided  into  two  in- 
dependent parts.    From  the  left  Apollo  and  the  nymphs 


Hermes  and  "Grace"  from  Thasos 
(Louvre) 


GROUPING  OF  FIGURES  1 35 

are  advancing  toward  the  open  door,  and  from  the  right 
Hermes  and  probably  the  graces.  In  the  inscriptions  all 
are  mentioned  by  name  except  Hermes,  who  is  recog- 
nized by  his  attitude  and  by  his  costume.  The  muses, 
who  in  later  times  always  appear  as  the  nine  compan- 
ions of  Apollo,  were  originally  nymphs  without  a  fixed 
number.  There  are  not  nine  nymphs  represented  here, 
and  it  may  even  be  doubtful  which  ones  of  the  figures 
are  the  nymphs  and  which  ones  are  the  graces ;  for  the 
traditional  number  of  three  for  the  latter  also  belongs 
to  a  younger  age.  If  there  was  an  attempt  at  character 
differentiation  between  the  two  sets  of  goddesses,  it  was 
so  slight  that  it  is  no  longer  appreciable. 

The  Grouping  of  Figures 

The  artist  bestowed  his  chief  attention  upon  the 
grouping  of  his  figures  and  their  modeling.  Five  fig- 
ures are  seen  on  either  side  of  the  door,  but  they  are 
subdivided  into  smaller  groups  of  three  and  two  of 
inverse  correspondence ;  for  whereas  the  group  of  two 
is  nearest  the  center  on  the  left,  it  is  on  the  right  the 
farthest  away  from  it.  On  both  sides  one  male  and 
one  female  figure  are  seen,  but  variety  is  introduced 
by  having  once  the  man  and  once  the  woman  supply 
the  livelier  lines  of  the  design.  A  similar  attempt  at 
variety  can  be  seen  in  the  corresponding  groups  of 
three  women  each.  Variety  here  was  especially  diffi- 
cult because  the  sculptor  felt  obliged  to  carve  all  the 


136 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


women  as  slowly  advancing  with  modest  steps.  Since 
the  lines  of  their  bodies,  therefore,  could  not  supply  him 
with  the  desired  motive  of  differentiation,  he  naturally 
sought  it  in  their  draperies.  And  this  led  to  a  devia- 
tion from  the  customary  way  of  carving  the  draped 
figure;  for  the  fuller  garments  of  the  women  on  the 
left  required  a  design  according  to  the  principle  of  sug- 
gested lines.  A  comparison  with  the  "  grace  "  back  of 
Hermes,  page  134,  where  the  sculptor  closely  adhered 
to  the  earlier  practice  of  actually  carving  the  lines  of 
the  body  under  the  drapery,  shows  the  effort  it  doubt- 
less cost  him  to  break  with  the  traditional  rendering  of 
the  human  form.  Nothing  but  the  necessity  of  intro- 
ducing variety  in  an  otherwise  well-balanced  composi- 
tion could  have  persuaded  him  to  try  a  new  mode  of 
execution.  He  was  remarkably  successful.  By  deli- 
cately indicating  a  few  prominent  parts  of  the  bodies, 
he  suggested  all ;  and  what  is  more,  he  never  sug- 
gested lines  in  one  part  contradicting  the  suggested 
lines  of  other  parts,  as  was  the  case  on  the  Spartan 
tombstone.  The  rendering  of  the  human  form  in  this 
new  style  implies  a  much  more  accurate  conception  of 
it  than  is  required  for  the  complete  delineation  of  all 
its  contours,  because  in  cases  where  the  lines  actually 
meet  the  correction  of  impressions  that  are  too  faulty 
is  inevitable. 


THE  OLD  AND  THE  NEW 


The  Old  and  the  New  Way  of  Representing  the 

Figure 

These  three  figures,  it  is  true,  cannot  compare  in 
charm  with  the  woman  crowning  Apollo  or  the 
"grace"  following  Hermes,  both  of  whom  are  carved 
at  least  in  part  in  the  older  style.  But  in  the  progress 
of  Greek  sculpture  they  hold  a  more  important  place. 
They  show  of  what  the  new  mode  of  rendering  the 
draped  figure  is  capable,  and  give  promises  of  great 
success.  The  two  other  figures,  on  the  contrary,  in 
spite  of  their  wonderful  charm,  clearly  show  the  limita- 
tions of  a  style  which  had  been  conscientiously  adhered 
to  from  the  first  in  the  hope  that  its  perfection  would 
bring  the  solution  of  all  the  difficult  problems.  Now, 
when  it  was  developed,  it  was  seen  to  be  incorrect  and 
was  therefore  doomed  to  disappear.  The  Greeks,  how- 
ever, did  not  find  it  easy  to  do  away  with  actually  see- 
ing the  nude  carved  below  the  drapery.  After  another 
century,  when  the  new  style  was  in  its  prime,  means 
were  again  invented  to  satisfy  this  need  of  the  people, 
and  the  entire  body  of  draped  figures  was  revealed  by 
subtle  suggestion  to  an  extent  unequaled  even  by  the 
most  radical  attempts  of  the  earlier  sculptors. 

The  beauty  of  the  girls  immediately  following  the 
gods  is  evident.  The  eagerness  and  proud  happiness 
of  the  nymph  crowning  Apollo  show  in  every  line  of 
her  body.    Her  form  is  carved  in  a  way  to  bring  out 


138 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  wonderful  restraint  which  does  not  allow  excited 
haste  to  disturb  the  contour  of  her  graceful  figure. 
The  "grace"  back  of  Hermes  is  entirely  different  but 
not  less  winsome.  Her  breast  is  rendered  with  per- 
haps too  much  fullness.  On  the  whole,  nevertheless, 
one's  eyes  glide  over  her  figure  with  remarkable  ease. 
The  artist,  it  seems,  bestowed  his  most  loving  care 
upon  these  two  girls.  It  is  therefore  especially  unfor- 
tunate that  they  are  less  well  preserved  than  the  others. 
None,  however,  are  slighted.  All  reveal  touches  of 
delicacy  and  give  proof  both  of  the  knowledge  and  the 
diligence  of  the  artist. 

Apollo  and  Hermes 

What  is  true  of  the  women  is  equally  true  of  the 
men.  They  are  wonderfully  sympathetic  creations  of 
sculpture.  Apollo  is  the  god  of  sunshine,  beauty,  and 
music.  He  has  been  advancing  toward  the  door  (as  can 
be  seen  from  the  direction  of  his  left  foot)  but  has  sud- 
denly heard  the  nymph  behind  him.  He  has  stopped 
and  half  turned  toward  her.  His  head  is  badly  dam- 
aged, but  he  seems  to  be  glancing  over  his  shoulder 
at  the  girl.  Checking  his  onward  movement,  he  leans 
back,  with  his  left  leg  still  bent  at  the  knee.  The 
resulting  twist  of  his  body  is  splendidly  conceived,  and 
rendered  with  marked  simplicity  in  the  new  (suggestive) 
style;  for  the  full  drapery  of  the  god  compelled  the 
artist  to  break  loose  from  the  old  traditions.  How 


VARIETY  IN  GROUPING  1 39 

many  attempts  had  intervened  between  this  Apollo  and 
the  winged  figure  from  Delos,  PI.  V,  Fig.  i,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  determine,  because  neither  of  them  can  be 
dated  with  accuracy;  allowing,  however,  the  greatest 
possible  space  of  time  to  have  elapsed  between  their 
creations,  and  granting  even  the  early  date  of  the  Delian 
statue,  they  still  come  within  two,  or  less  likely  three, 
short  generations.  It  is  even  possible  that  they  are 
much  nearer  each  other ;  for  the  twist  of  the  "Artemis  " 
in  the  round  made  greater  demands  on  the  skill  of  the 
artist  than  that  of  the  Apollo  on  the  relief. 

The  drapery  of  Apollo  is  a  study  in  itself.  For 
the  first  time  the  folds  are  not  rigid,  as  the  material 
of  which  they  are  carved ;  they  fall  easily,  and  with 
the  appearance  of  softness,  even  readiness  to  obey  the 
least  impulse  of  a  contrary  breeze.  Only  the  chiton 
below  the  upper  garment  is  designed  in  the  traditional 
way  of  parallel  folds. 

Hermes  wears  a  peculiar  garment,  the  traveler's 
cape  or  chlamys,  which  hardly  appears  in  early  sculp- 
ture. It  is  therefore  much  cruder  in  appearance  than 
Apollo's  himation,  and  is  on  the  left  arm  carved  with 
the  same  parallel  lines  that  can  be  noticed  on  a  crude 
statue  representing  Chares,  which  dates  about  540  b.c. 
In  front,  however,  the  folds  show  a  freedom  not  unlike 
that  of  the  garment  of  Apollo. 

In  spite  of  his  small  cape,  Hermes,  PI.  VII,  Fig.  3, 
is  really  conceived  in  contrast  to  the  draped  Apollo  as 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  nude  figure  of  the  composition.  Compared  with 
the  early  nude  figures,  his  gestures  and  his  stride  are 
freer,  because  of  the  ease  with  which  an  extended  arm 
and  a  bold  step  are  carved  in  relief.  His  features  too 
and  the  pose  of  his  head  are  more  successful.  In  gen- 
eral conception,  however,  he  is  not  unlike  the  "  Apollo  " 
of  Tenea.  Here,  as  there,  a  few  unconnected  parts  of 
the  body  are  distinctly  felt  and  carefully  modeled, 
though  not  growing  together  in  a  natural  way.  In 
the  Tenean  figure  the  sculptor  has  made  transitions 
by  carving  almost  meaningless  masses;  here  he  has 
tried  to  hide  their  absence  by  the  garment,  with  little 
success ;  for  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  feel  beneath  the 
cape  of  Hermes  the  god's  abdomen  or  his  chest.  One 
also  vainly  endeavors  to  imagine  how  the  legs  are 
joined  to  the  trunk  in  the  fashion  suggested  by  the 
lines  of  the  shoulders. 

The  extended  arm  is  perhaps  the  best  modeled  part 
of  the  figure;  it  is  far  from  rigid,  though  strong,  and 
implies  a  kind  welcome  and  a  generous  address.  The 
different  surfaces  of  the  upper  and  the  lower  arm,  and 
the  dimpled  elbow,  are  distinctly  felt,  and  are  rendered 
with  a  perfection  not  expected  in  a  man  who  had  so 
much  difficulty  in  joining  the  legs  to  the  body. 

In  the  half-open  mouth  one  may  perhaps  see  a 
reference  to  Hermes  Logios,  "  the  Speaker,"  as  the  god 
was  sometimes  called.  From  analogy  to  vase  paintings 
it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  the  exact  words  which 


TECHNIQUE  OF  THASIAN  RELIEF  141 

accompanied  the  addressing  gesture  of  the  god  were 
painted  near  his  mouth.  The  speaking  mouth,  how- 
ever, was  early  found  to  be  entirely  out  of  place  in 
sculpture;  for  this  branch  of  art  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  accidental.  No  gesture,  however  accurate, 
must  be  carved  which  is  not  primarily  expressive  of 
character.  The  open  mouth  in  stone,  although  con- 
ceived as  a  speaking  mouth,  cannot  fail  to  impress  the 
spectator  as  the  indication  of  those  rather  unpleasant 
qualities  of  character  which  are  associated  with  people 
who  keep  their  mouths  open  habitually.  The  Thasian 
artist  introduced  the  open  mouth  to  make  his  Hermes 
more  lifelike.  It  was  a  mistake,  since  such  a  device  is 
contrary  to  the  principles  of  sculpture. 

The  Technique  of  the  Thasian  Relief 

Technically  only  the  Hermes  and  one  or  two  other 
figures  show  a  deviation  from  the  simple  fashion  of 
carving  a  relief  with  all  the  figures  surrounded  by  an 
even  depth  of  background.  The  round  contours  of  the 
Hermes,  and  especially  of  his  lifelike  right  arm  and  of 
his  legs,  are  due  to  the  play  of  light  and  shade  about 
him,  which  the  artist  obtained  by  cutting  away  more  or 
less  of  the  background.  The  artist  was  on  the  right 
way,  following  which  the  Parthenon  sculptors  solved 
practically  all  the  problems  of  relief  sculpture;  but 
being  one  of  the  pioneers,  he  was  not  entirely  suc- 
cessful.   He  forgot,  in  the  first  place,  to  disguise  his 


142 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


devices  from  the  spectator ;  even  in  the  photograph  the 
uneven  grooves  above  the  extended  arm  and  about 
the  legs  can  be  seen.  It  is,  however,  one  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  art  not  to  show  the  means 
by  which  an  illusion  is  obtained,  for  the  spectator's 
readiness  to  be  deceived  is  in  keeping  with  his  dis- 
like of  having  it  pointed  out  to  him  that  he  has  been 
misled. 

It  was  the  introduction  of  a  new  technique  which 
made  use  of  shadows  that  prevented  the  Thasian 
sculptor  from  doing  justice  to  his  figures.  In  the  legs 
of  Hermes  he  was  especially  unsuccessful.  If  one  looks 
only  at  the  feet,  it  is  not  difficult  to  suppose  that  the 
right  foot  was  farther  away  than  the  left;  but  if  one 
looks  at  the  knees,  and  sees  the  edge  of  the  cloak  lie 
there  as  close  to  the  left  as  it  does  to  the  right,  while 
it  throws  a  distinct  shadow  on  the  background  between 
them,  one  cannot  help  imagining  both  legs  to  be  on  the 
same  plane.  This  is,  in  a  position  like  that  of  Hermes, 
impossible.  By  relieving  the  cloak  sharply  against  the 
right  leg,  and  allowing  it  to  throw  a  prominent  shadow 
on  this  leg,  the  semblance  of  an  accurate  production 
would  have  been  saved.  This  of  course  would  have 
meant  carving  the  right  leg,  from  the  ankle  to  the  hip, 
gradually  receding  into  the  background;  for  only  thus 
could  the  cape  be  strongly  relieved  from  the  knee. 
Such  a  device  was  in  constant  use  with  the  Parthenon 
sculptors.    To  the  earlier  artist,  however,  it  seemed  to 


THE  FIRST  ATTEMPTS:  IN  RELIEF  143 

do  too  much  violence  to  his  conception,  —  if  it  at  all 
occurred  to  him. 

This  Thasian  relief,  then,  exhibits  a  remarkable  mix- 
ture of  the  old  and  the  new,  both  in  technique  and  in 
general  design.  The  old  had  been  pushed  to  its  perfec- 
tion, and  its  limitations  had  been  recognized.  The  new 
was  tentatively  and,  it  seems,  almost  unwillingly  intro- 
duced ;  for  the  conservative  adherence  to  tradition  was 
a  prominent  characteristic  of  the  Greeks  before  the 
Persian  wars.  Only  after  the  barbarians  had  broken 
the  almost  sacred  relics  of  the  past,  and  after  the 
Greeks  had  been  freed,  not  alone  politically  from  the 
threatening  danger  of  the  Orientals  but  also  morally 
and  intellectually  from  all  kinds  of  real  or  imagined 
restrictions,  —  when  in  short  their  horizon  had  begun  to 
widen,  —  was  the  new,  which  really  exhibited  nothing 
but  the  rational  outgrowth  of  the  old,  recognized  at 
its  true  worth,  and  developed  with  a  rapidity  before 
which  the  advance  of  the  earlier  and  more  conservative 
masters  was  bound  to  appear  all  but  tardy. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


CONSERVATISM  ;   READY  SKILL  BEFORE 
FREEDOM  OF  CONCEPTION 

If  a  complete  set  of  statues  antedating  the  Persian 
wars  were  in  existence,  one  could  probably  trace  from 
it  the  tenacity  with  which  the  early  Greeks  clung  to 
the  traditional  way  of  rendering  the  human  form.  The 
sculptors '  were  ready  to  improve  upon  the  attainments 
of  their  predecessors,  but  unwilling  to  push  their  efforts 
in  new  directions.  No  complete  set  of  statues  is  in 
existence.  Few  pieces  of  good  workmanship  are  pre- 
served, and  these,  although  numerous  enough  to  give 
weight  to  the  above  assertion,  could  not  prove  it  unless 
they  were  supplemented  by  a  series  of  old  statues  from 
Athens  showing  the  gradual  advance  of  sculpture  there 
during  a  period  of  almost  a  century.  The  majority  of 
these  statues  are  of  Athenian  origin,  so  that  in  using 
them  in  this  connection  one  runs  the  danger  of  con- 
fusing the  tendencies  of  a  local  school  with  the  large 
principles  governing  the  whole  of  Greece.  This  dan- 
ger is  avoided  if  one  keeps  in  mind  that  the  Athe- 
nian figures  are  not  intended  to  carry  the  burden  of  the 
proof  but  simply  to  illustrate  what  appears  to  be  fairly 

established  by  other  monuments. 

144 


Akropulis  Figure 
(Athens) 


SKILL  BEFORE  FREEDOM  OF  CONCEPTION  145 

During  the  excavations  on  the  Akropolis  of  Athens 
from  1885  to  1 89 1,  when  every  cubic  foot  of  soil  was 
turned  over,  some  thirty  draped  female  figures  were 
found.  They  had  been  broken  by  the  Persians  in 
480  B.C.,  and  had  been  buried  by  the  Athenians  after 
the  successful  battle  of  Salamis,  perhaps  in  order  to 
serve,  together  with  other  rubbish,  for  the  broadening 
of  the  level  surface  of  the  Akropolis.  For  twenty-three 
centuries  they  lay  undisturbed  in  the  dry  soil  on  top  of 
the  living  rock,  and  escaped  the  utter  destruction  and 
oblivion  which  overtook  most  of  the  contemporaneous 
sculpture.  Not  even  Roman  copies  of  works  of  this 
period  are  extant;  for  the  Roman  taste  did  not  appre- 
ciate the  earliest  attempts  of  the  Greeks. 

When  first  discovered  these  figures  showed  many 
traces  of  painting,  and  thus  served  to  strengthen  the 
argument  of  the  coloring  of  ancient  statuary.  All  of 
them  are  of  marble.  They  represent  unknown  women. 
Athena  images,  although  dedicated  on  her  sacred  pre- 
cinct, they  can  hardly  be ;  for  not  one  of  them  contains 
any  of  her  attributes,  —  helmet,  spear,  snake,  or  aegis. 
It  is  now  generally  believed  they  are  priestesses  of 
Athena ;  but  nowhere  in  literature  is  a  custom  referred 
to  by  which  these  priestesses  were  allowed  to  have 
their  statues  dedicated  either  at  the  end  of  their  term 
of  office  or  during  the  performance  of  their  duty.  Such 
a  custom  is,  however,  known  from  Argos,  the  seat  of 
the  famous  temple  of  Hera. 


146 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  Akropolis  statues,  whether  priestesses  or  simply 
Athenian  maidens,  seem  to  have  been  erected  at  inter- 
vals during  a  period  of  sixty  years  or  more,  the  latest 
perhaps  in  the  very  year  of  the  Persian  attack,  the 
earliest  surely  not  before  the  time  when  Peisistra- 
tos  had  himself  firmly  established  in  Athens.  This  is 
proved  not  only  by  a  comparison  of  the  statues  with 
an  Athena  excavated  at  the  same  time,  which  formed 
part  of  the  pedimental  decorations  of  a  large  temple 
built  by  Peisistratos,  but  also  by  the  fact  that  many 
pieces  in  soft  stone  from  the  same  excavation  ante- 
date the  marble  figures  as  clearly  as  they  are,  in  part 
at  least,  later  than  the  crude  works  of  about  600  b.c. 
and  the  following  decades. 

The  entire  series  has  recently  been  classified  from 
several  points  of  view,  and  although  it  is  impossible  to 
distinguish  in  every  case  the  earlier  from  the  later,  no 
doubts  can  be  entertained  as  to  those  figures  which 
mark  the  very  beginning  and  those  which  form  the 
end  of  the  series. 

One  of  the  earliest,  PI.  VIII,  Fig.  i,  is  in  concep- 
tion not  unlike  the  "Apollo"  statues.  The  breast  is 
carved  with  characteristic  fullness  and  inaccuracy,  both 
in  position  and  in  shape.  Below  the  breast  the  body 
appears  in  indefinite  masses.  Even  the  outlines  are 
mistaken,  for  the  lines  from  the  shoulders,  along  the 
waist  to  the  hips,  and  down  the  legs,  show  a  very  hazy 


SKILL  BEFORE  FREEDOM  OF  CONCEPTION  147 

conception  of  the  actual  contours  of  a  woman.  Like 
the  "  Apollo  "  figures  this  statue  was  carved  under  the 
restrictions  which  the  shape  of  the  block  and  the  weight 
of  its  material  imposed.  The  arms,  though  detached 
below  the  shoulders,  were  not  far  removed  from  the 
body;  for  the  sculptor  did  not  dare  to  separate  them 
by  more  than  a  narrow  opening.  This  explains  the 
comparatively  straight  lines  of  the  body,  which  were 
only  dimly  felt  by  the  artist,  and  which,  therefore, 
readily  assumed  the  easiest  direction  suggested  by  the 
now  lost  arms.  The  lines  are  not  in  the  least  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  figure  was  draped ;  for  though  the  gar- 
ment was  heavy  enough  to  fall  in  prominent  folds  in 
front,  it  was  all  but  suppressed  wherever  any  part  of  the 
body  was  to  be  shown  which  the  sculptor  had  clearly 
conceived.  This  is  especially  well  seen  on  the  breast, 
where  the  artist  relied  entirely  upon  the  addition  of 
paint  to  show  the  drapery.  About  the  legs  the  gar- 
ment is  tightly  stretched,  revealing  slight  folds  not  dis- 
similar to  those  on  the  cape  of  the  Hermes  from  Thasos, 
page  134. 

The  pose  of  the  figure  is  erect  but  rather  neutral,  less 
indicative  of  the  character  of  this  particular  woman  than 
of  that  of  the  type  to  which  she  belongs.  The  head 
rests  tall  and  proud  upon  a  straight  neck,  the  great 
thickness  of  which,  necessary  for  technical  reasons, 
is  somewhat  disguised  by  the  braids  falling  over  the 
shoulders. 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  features  are  prominent,  and  rendered  with  the 
simplicity  of  a  man  who  has  not  yet  learned  to  read  in 
them  more  than  their  actual  shape  implies.  The  treat- 
ment of  the  eyebrow  is  especially  interesting.  The 
artist  apparently  had  a  definite  idea  of  the  distance 
between  the  brow  and  the  eyeball,  but  he  converted 
the  distance  of  depth  into  one  of  height,  perhaps 
because  it  was  difficult  to  render  it  properly,  but  more 
likely  because  of  the  haziness  of  his  memory  image. 
The  result  was  an  apparently  bulging  eye,  the  more  so 
since  the  treatment  of  the  eyelids  offered  the  same 
difficulty  as  the  brow.  The  upper  and  the  lower  eye- 
lids are  curved  in  opposite  directions,  but  without  any 
feeling  for  their  characteristic  differences  in  shape  and 
substance.  The  same  is  true  of  the  lips ;  for  the  lower 
lip  is  only  the  inverted  upper  lip,  or  vice  versa. 

The  entire  figure  seems  to  be  the  fairly  accurate  ren- 
dering of  a  primitive  artist's  hazy  conception  of  a  female 
body.  Nowhere  do  we  feel  that  the  artist  was  conscious 
of  his  lack  of  skill.  He  realized  the  restrictions  of  the 
material  in  which  he  worked  and  submitted  to  them 
cheerfully  because  his  conceptions  were  sufficiently  hazy 
to  be  readily  adapted  to  any  contingencies.  In  the  case 
of  the  broad  neck  designed  to  support  the  heavy  head, 
and  cleverly  disguised  by  the  braids,  we  may  perhaps 
even  find  an  indication  of  satisfaction  on  the  part  of  the 
sculptor  with  his  own  work.  There  is  an  inscription 
extant  of  an  artist  from  Naxos  who  worked  at  about 


INFLUENCE  OF  DRAPERY 


149 


the  same  time,  and  who  was  so  well  satisfied  with  his 
own  creation,  PL  III,  Fig.  2,  faulty  though  it  now 
appears,  that  he  wrote  under  it  "Alxenor  of  Naxos 
made  me.  Just  look  at  me ! "  We  do  not  know  what 
was  written  on  the  base  of  this  figure,  but  we  should 
not  be  astonished  to  find  there  too  the  expression  of 
self-approbation. 

With  every  successive  attempt  the  sculptors  of  this 
series  show  that  they  have  advanced  both  in  skill  and 
in  clearness  of  conception.  Their  memory  images  of 
the  body  have  become  somewhat  more  distinct,  their 
conceptions  of  the  enveloping  drapery  have  grown,  and 
their  skill  has  kept  pace  with  the  general  advance. 

The  Influence  of  the  Drapery  upon  the 
Treatment  of  the  Nude 

The  drapery  in  all  these  figures  is  of  prime  impor- 
tance, but  the  sculptors  would  not  have  been  Greek 
if  they  had  not  been  interested  in  the  nude.  They 
bestowed,  therefore,  their  most  loving  care  upon  the 
only  visible  nude  part,  —  the  face.  The  face  in  Greek 
sculpture,  on  the  whole,  is  but  one  of  many  interesting 
parts  of  the  body,  and  entitled  only  to  its  proportion- 
ate amount  of  care.  The  Akropolis  sculptors,  on  the 
contrary,  felt  obliged,  it  seems,  to  express  in  the  face 
all  that  their  contemporaries  who  worked  in  the  nude, 
and  their  successors  who  were  more  skillful  in  the  treat- 
ment of  the  drapery,  told  by  means  of  the  entire  body. 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


This  was  the  more  necessary  for  them  to  do,  since  the 
pose  for  their  statues  was  apparently  prescribed:  all 
stand  with  one  leg  advanced,  holding  the  drapery  up 
daintily  in  one  hand.  The  artists  had  to  grapple,  there- 
fore, with  the  entirely  un-Greek  problem  of  facial  expres- 
sion, and  that  at  a  time  when  the  full  meaning  of  a 
countenance  revealing  character  was  unknown.  Viewed 
in  this  light  the  exaggeration  of  the  features  to  which 
the  sculptors  resorted  is  as  little  surprising  as  their 
inability  to  convey  a  definite  meaning.  Facial  expres- 
sion with  them  did  not  spring  from  the  innate  desire  to 
put  the  soul  in  the  face,  —  indeed,  the  very  word  vovs, 
"  soul,"  in  its  spiritual  meaning  was  unknown  to  them. 
It  was  rather  the  result  of  their  mistaken  endeavor  to 
solve  a  technical  problem. 

The  great  attention  given  to  the  faces  of  these  fig- 
ures is  equaled  only  by  the  care  bestowed  upon  their 
elaborate  draperies.  Unable  at  first  to  represent  well 
the  fullness  of  the  garment  shrouding  a  beautifully  de- 
veloped body,  and  dissatisfied  with  taking  such  liber- 
ties with  it  as  the  sculptor  of  one  of  the  first  figures, 
PI.  VIII,  Fig.  I,  had  done,  the  artists  drifted  in  the 
direction  of  carving  the  drapery  for  itself.  And  this 
again  influenced  the  entire  design  of  the  figures.  Sharp 
angles  in  the  human  body  are  unpleasant  because  indica- 
tive of  poor  development ;  in  a  piece  of  cloth  they  are 
less  out  of  place,  and  often  even  very  acceptable.  When 
this  was  noticed  they  were  believed  to  add  piquancy 


DORIAN  OR  IONIAN  I51 

to  a  work  and  were  therefore  no  longer  confined  to 
the  drapery  but  introduced  also  in  the  face.  Some 
sculptors  went  so  far  in  this  direction  that  their  fig- 
ures, PI.  VIII,  Fig.  3,  may  be  said  to  lack  completely 
straight  lines  and  right  angles.  The  brow  is  acutely 
arched,  the  eyes  are  slanting  inward  toward  the  nose, 
and  the  difficult  problem  of  the  mouth  is  solved  by  carv- 
ing the  lips  also  in  a  sharp  curve.  Not  all  the  sculptors, 
however,  were  carried  away  by  this  fad  of  the  sharp 
curve  and  the  oblique  angle.  Several  heads,  page 
144,  and  PI.  IX,  Fig.  4,  belonging  to  this  series  are 
simple  and  straightforward.  They  have  on  that  account 
been  assigned  to  the  Doric  school  of  sculpture,  which 
some  credit  with  these  characteristics.  The  close  inter- 
course, however,  that  existed  between  the  different  art 
centers  in  Greece  from  the  earliest  time,  and  the  ready 
exchange  of  ideas  everywhere  and  more  especially  in 
Olympia  and  in  Delphi,  where  works  from  all  over 
Greece  could  be  seen,  and  where  Dorians  and  lonians 
alike  met  for  days  in  succession  during  the  frequent 
national  games,  indicate  that  the  sculptors  of  the  more 
dainty  figures  in  the  angular  style  were  familiar  with 
the  practice  of  other  schools.  These  several  heads, 
therefore,  instead  of  being  the  work  of  foreign  artists, 
may  show  the  voluntary  reaction  of  some  of  the  Athe- 
nians who  themselves  had  begun  to  realize  the  mistake 
into  which  the  loving  care  of  the  drapery  had  driven 
them. 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Comparison  of  Some  of  the  Earlier  and  Later 
Akropolis  Figures 

Even  the  study  of  a  few  of  these  figures  illustrates 
these  several  points.  In  the  figure  on  PL  VIII,  Fig.  2, 
the  sculptor  has  conceived  more  clearly  than  his  prede- 
cessor his  task  of  carving  a  draped  figure.  The  line 
of  the  left  side  is  here  not  unlike  the  line  of  the  earlier 
figure,  PI.  VIII,  Fig.  i ;  but  while  there  it  was  meant  to 
represent  the  actual  contour  of  the  body,  it  is  here, 
in  part  at  least,  explained  by  the  folds  of  the  garment. 
The  breast,  which  on  the  other  figure  was  carved  with 
such  prominence  as  to  overlook  the  fact  that  the  woman 
was  draped,  is  here  treated  with  so  much  moderation 
that  it  is  almost  unnoticed.  The  drapery  has  become 
the  all-important  part,  and  the  breasts,  lest  they  detract 
from  the  drapery,  are  hidden  below  the  braids.  This 
is  in  strong  contrast  to  the  earlier  statue,  where  the 
sculptor  had  carried  the  braids  to  the  sides  in  order  to 
have  the  breasts  seen.  No  clearer  indication  could  be 
given  of  the  change  which  the  conception  of  the  artist 
had  undergone.  The  earlier  sculptor  conceived  his  task 
to  be  the  carving  of  a  human  figure  which  happened 
to  be  draped ;  the  later  sculptor  endeavored  to  show 
the  drapery  which  happened  to  be  worn  by  a  woman. 
The  beautiful  patterns  which  are  preserved  on  some  of 
these  statues  seem  to  indicate  that  these  women  wore 
their  festal  robes.    It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  the 


AKROPOLIS  FIGURES  COMPARED  153 

ladies  who  are  here  represented  insisted  upon  the  care- 
ful representation  of  their  garments,  even  at  the  cost  of 
having  their  bodies  slighted. 

The  faces  of  the  two  statues  singled  out  for  compari- 
son also  show  marked  differences  not  only  in  their  out- 
lines but  also  in  the  treatment  of  details.  The  later 
sculptor,  for  instance,  had  a  far  clearer  conception  of 
the  several  integral  parts  of  the  eye.  He  carefully  and 
clearly  differentiated  between  the  upper  and  the  lower 
lids,  and  carved  the  upper  lid,  perhaps  in  the  first  pleas- 
ure of  having  noticed  its  length,  entire,  ignorant  as  yet 
of  the  possibility  of  suggesting  its  whole  extent,  even 
if  it  was  rolled  up.  He  made  a  great  mistake,  and  cer- 
tainly laid  himself  open  to  misinterpretation,  for  there 
are  people  who  under  given  conditions  drop  their  upper 
lids  without  entirely  closing  their  eyes.  And  since  in 
their  case  we  are  apt  to  read  either  their  habitual  char- 
acter or  their  momentary  state  of  mind  in  their  eyes, 
we  cannot  help  doing  the  same  with  the  early  Athenian 
statues.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sculptor  really 
wanted  to  express  character,  which  in  the  absence  of 
individuality  in  his  figure  is  hardly  likely  to  have  been 
the  case,  he  was  not  successful.  His  exaggeration 
made  that  impossible.  It  is  more  probable  that  he 
carved  the  upper  lids  in  their  entire  extent  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  he  was  striving  to  express  accurately 
his  mental  image  of  the  eye  and  its  surroundings. 


154 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  Treatment  of  the  Mouth 

The  mouth  is  perhaps  the  best  part  of  the  statue. 
The  lips  are  straight,  but  full  of  delicate  modulations, 
running  off  easily  into  the  cheeks.  It  is  a  refined  and 
beautiful  mouth,  treated  without  the  exaggeration  com- 
mon to  most  of  the  statues,  which  is  the  more  remark- 
able since  the  mouth  offered  great  difficulties  to  the 
sculptors  from  the  beginning.  The  straight  cut  across, 
with  the  abrupt  termination  as  it  appears  on  one  of  the 
oldest  heads  of  Hera  from  Olympia,  PI.  IX,  Fig.  i,  and 
also  already  on  the  golden  mask  of  a  bearded  warrior 
from  Mycenae,  proved  unsatisfactory  at  an  early  date. 
A  bronze  head  from  the  Akropolis,  PI.  IX,  Fig.  2,  and 
the  head  on  PI.  VIII,  Fig.  i,  show  the  next  step,  with 
the  line  between  the  lips  straight  across,  and  the  Hps 
arching  almost  evenly  above  and  below.  A  straight 
line  of  this  kind  is  unsatisfactory  in  the  profile  view, 
where  it  seems  to  form  an  unpleasant  angle  with  the 
lines  of  the  jaw.  The  mouth,  therefore,  was  carved 
slanting  down  from  the  corners.  This,  however,  neces- 
sitated a  peculiar  treatment  of  the  line  joining  the  two 
corners  of  the  mouth.  The  easiest  way  was  to  carve  a 
simple  curve.  It  is  seen  in  the  majority  of  heads  ante- 
dating the  Persian  wars.  The  curve  was  more  pleasant 
to  look  upon  than  the  straight  cut  across,  but  it  was  not 
less  radically  different  from  nature.  Writers  on  Greek 
sculpture,  struck  by  the  peculiarity  of  this  curve,  have 


ARCHAIC  SMILE  1 55 

termed  it  the  "archaic  smile."  This  is  a  misnomer, 
because  the  Greeks  did  not  resort  to  it  with  the  inten- 
tion of  carving  a  smiling  expression.  Far  from  it! 
The  curve  was  the  result  of  a  technical  difficulty.  In 
Athens  it  fitted  in  well  with  the  tendencies  of  some 
local  sculptors,  who  developed  it  and  exploited  it  a 
great  deal.  The  majority  of  the  Greek  artists,  however, 
were  never  entirely  satisfied  with  it,  and  strove  inces- 
santly to  reach  a  more  pleasing  rendering  of  their  con- 
ceptions of  the  human  mouth. 

Two  very  interesting  experiments  are  found  among 
the  Akropolis  figures.  The  lower  lip  (head,  page  144), 
is  treated  much  like  the  lip  on  the  bronze  head,  PI.  IX, 
Fig.  2,  with  the  upper  edge  straight  for  the  front  view 
and  the  lower  edge  in  a  drooping  curve  from  the  cor- 
ners to  agree  with  the  line  of  the  jaw  in  the  profile 
view.  The  upper  lip  is  broken  up  in  two  curves,  which 
are  joined  in  the  center  and  form  what  is  called  a 
"cupid*s  bow."  It  is  a  great  improvement  over  the 
single  curve,  but  in  effect  not  yet  altogether  pleasing. 
The  next  artist  went  a  step  farther,  and  on  his  figure, 
PI.  IX,  Fig.  4,  each  one  of  the  two  curves  of  the  upper 
lip  is  again  broken  up  in  two.  The  result  of  this  is 
an  extremely  delicate  mouth.  By  following  this  hint 
of  breaking  the  lip  up  into  several  parts,  the  sculptor 
of  the  figure,  PL  VIII,  Fig.  2,  which  formed  the  starting 
point  of  this  discussion,  succeeded  in  carving  a  most 
exquisite  mouth. 


156 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Lack  of  Sincerity 

The  simplicity  of  this  figure  is  in  strong  contrast  with 
the  lack  of  it  in  one  of  the  latest  statues  of  this  series. 
The  latter  figure,  PI.  VIII,  Fig.  3,  though  extremely 
delicate  in  treatment,  shows  the  tendency  of  angular 
lines  and  sharp  curves  to  an  unpleasant  degree.  And 
what  is  more,  it  indicates  that  the  artist  who  made  it 
was  no  longer  sincere  in  the  representation  of  his  con- 
ceptions. He  copied  the  technique  of  his  predecessors. 
The  corkscrew  curls  which  take  the  place  of  braids  are 
well  done,  but  they  are  carved  exactly  like  the  upper 
fold  of  the  outer  garment,  —  the  artist  did  not  feel  the 
quality  of  the  objects  he  carved.  The  same  probably 
is  true  of  the  eyes,  and  of  the  spirals  in  which  the  locks 
terminate  over  the  forehead. 

If  the  sculptor  had  been  left  free  to  reproduce  his 
ideas  as  he  conceived  them,  he  might  have  carved  an 
entirely  different  figure;  but  for  some  reason  he  was 
obliged  to  design  the  statue  of  this  woman  in  the  iden- 
tical way  in  which  all  her  predecessors  had  been  repre- 
sented. To  have  her  statue  carved  in  this  old  honored 
way  seems  to  have  been  the  desire  and  the  prerogative 
of  every  one  of  these  ladies.  Who,  indeed,  we  may  ask, 
would  have  been  bold  enough  to  break  with  this  custom, 
and  have  her  statue  carved  in  a  new  style  to  conform 
with  the  more  accomplished  skill  and  the  more  correct 
ideas  of  the  artists.?    Only  after  all  these  statues  had 


LACK  OF  SINCERITY  1 57 

been  destroyed  by  the  Persians  and  been  buried  by  the 
Athenians,  did  the  artists  and  their  patrons  dare  to  start 
along  a  new  road. 

The  latest  statues  of  this  series  are  extremely  sugges- 
tive of  what  might  have  become  of  Greek  sculpture  if  it 
had  lacked  the  awakening  and  liberating  influence  which 
followed  upon  the  victory  over  the  barbarians.  The 
skill  of  the  artists  had  grown,  but  their  conceptions  had 
not  been  permitted  to  find  adequate  expressions  in  new 
directions.  One  has  only  to  compare  the  over-elabora- 
tion of  PI.  VIII,  Fig.  3,  or  the  fanciful  spirals  which 
take  the  place  of  hair  in  PI.  IX,  Fig.  3,  with  the  earliest 
creations  of  the  Akropolis  series,  to  see  the  danger  of 
fossilization  of  ideas  which  had  begun  to  threaten  the 
sculptors.  In  some  of  the  statues,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  are  indications  of  vigor  and  sincerity.  It  is  there- 
fore not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Greeks  would 
perhaps  have  been  able  to  retrieve  themselves  even 
without  the  stimulus  that  came  with  the  Persian  wars. 


CHAPTER  XV 


BROKEN  FETTERS:  A  PERIOD  OF  TRANSITION 

The  Persian  wars  mark  a  turning  point  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  Greek  race.  When  Xerxes  gathered 
his  enormous  army  to  reduce  the  continental  Greeks,  it 
seemed  as  if  all  the  dim  dread  of  barbaric  and  uncon- 
querable chaos  was  to  become  a  reality.  All  the  energy 
of  the  last  centuries  had  been  spent  in  vain,  for  the 
cloud  had  gathered  which  threatened  to  sweep  into 
oblivion  the  ideals  for  whose  realization  the  best  men 
had  labored.  When  a  storm  of  this  kind  breaks,  the 
nation  goes  down,  unless  it  is  upheld  by  the  accumu- 
lated energy  of  its  past  achievements.  Nations  in  this 
respect  are  like  individuals  whose  conquest  over  adver- 
sities depends  "on  the  degree  of  moral  strength  into 
which  their  hearts  have  been  already  trained."  The 
Greeks  did  overcome  the  Persians;  chaos  was  not  un- 
conquerable; the  cause  of  right  and  light  and  progress 
had  shown  its  power  to  triumph  over  apparently  un- 
surmountable  obstacles.  There  is  nothing  impossible 
for  him  who  has  the  strength  of  faith;  there  are  no 
arbitrary  bounds  either  in  the  material  or  in  the  spirit- 
ual world  which,  if  they  hinder  the  vigorous  advance 

of  right  activities,  cannot  be  broken  down.    With  this 

158 


Aristogeiton  (Naples) 
From  Brunn-Arndt,  PI.  326 


A  PERIOD  OF  TRANSITION  1 59 

realization  there  comes  a  joyful  spirit  of  freedom;  no 
longer  a  mere  mortal  bound  by  meshes  of  uncontrolla- 
ble fate,  one  feels  the  divine  part  within  one  and  knows 
how  to  partake  of  limitless  possibilities,  as  is  the  right 
of  gods.  When  the  Greeks  took  their  seats  at  the  oars 
and  rowed  up  the  Bay  of  Salamis,  when  the  Persians' 
countless  ships  were  routed  and  the  hostile  army  fled, 
then  the  people  began  to  know  what  men  can  do, 
if  to  do  they  dare  and  will.  When  the  Athenians  re- 
turned to  their  city  and  found  her  in  ruins  and  at  once 
set  out  to  rebuild  her,  then  they  had  learned  the  les- 
son that  "though  right  be  worsted,  wrong  can  never 
triumph." 

A  spirit  of  freedom,  in  consequence,  took  hold  of  the 
Greeks  in  every  department  of  life.  Their  literature 
echoes  it,  their  philosophy  builds  on  it,  and  their  art 
expresses  it.  Freedom  and  daring  alike  of  conception 
and  of  execution  are  immediately  noticeable;  the  old 
is  no  longer  followed  because  it  is  venerable:  it  is 
weighed  and  retained  if  it  is  good,  or  discarded  and 
forgotten  if  it  is  found  to  be  the  lifeless  inheritance  of 
the  past. 

The  momentum  acquired  by  the  entire  race  after 
the  Persian  wars  is  such  that  one  wonders  less  at  the 
broken  fetters  than  at  the  moderate  use  which  is  made 
of  the  newly  gained  freedom.  To  take  the  straight  and 
narrow  path  in  a  closely  circumscribed  life  is  a  much 
slighter  achievement  than  to  follow  the  proper  direction 


l6o  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

unwaveringly  when  all  the  bounds  are  broken  down. 
But  this  the  Greek  sculptors  did;  they  never  looked 
on  their  freedom  as  a  licentious  relief  from  laws  of  any 
kind,  but  as  a  right  to  choose  the  best.  They  did  not 
succumb  to  a  reckless  spirit  of  innovation,  nor  advance 
by  bounds  and  leaps,  nor  break  completely  with  the 
past.  They  built  upon  the  best  achievements  of  their 
predecessors,  discarding  only  such  restrictions  as  the 
earlier  artists  had  permitted  to  grow  up  arbitrarily  and 
hamper  the  best  expression  of  their  ideas. 

All  restrictions  under  such  a  mode  of  procedure  can- 
not disappear  at  once.  The  first  thirty  years  after  the 
Persian  wars  are  a  period  of  transition.  Few  works, 
unfortunately,  are  preserved  of  its  activity,  and  of  the 
sculptors  who  lead  up  to  Pheidias  little  is  accurately 
known.  Three  men,  however,  stand  out  prominently, 
each  one  marking  a  definite  achievement  in  the  art  of 
sculpture,  —  Myron,  Pythagoras,  and  Kalamis.  Their 
work  is  linked  to  the  past  by  its  affinity  to  the  creations 
of  two  other  men,  Kritios  and  Nesiotes,  who  were  the 
sculptors  of  one  of  the  most  famous  groups  of  antiquity, 
reproducing  a  still  older  type. 

The  Link  with  the  Past:  the  Tyrannicide  Group 

When  Xerxes  sacked  Athens  and  ordered  most  of  the 
temples  and  the  statues  broken,  he  took  such  delight  in 
a  bronze  group  commemorating  Harmodios  and  Aristo- 
geiton  that  he  decreed  its  preservation  and  carried  it 


THE  LINK  WITH  THE  PAST  i6l 

away  with  him  to  Persia.  This  was  the  more  remark- 
able since  these  youths  had  been  the  assassins  of  Hip- 
parchos,  one  of  the  sons  of  Peisistratos  and  a  brother 
of  Hippias,  who  had  accompanied  Xerxes  on  his  cam- 
paign against  Greece.  By  this  murder  they  had  been 
the  cause  of  the  downfall  of  the  monarchy  in  Athens. 
The  Athenians,  in  their  turn,  forgetful  of  the  fact  that 
it  was  personal  spite  and  hatred  which  had  actuated  the 
deed,  and  looking  upon  the  tyrannicides  as  the  vindica- 
tors of  their  liberty,  had  ordered  their  statues  made  by 
Antenor,  probably  soon  after  510  B.C.  And  again,  im- 
mediately upon  their  return  to  Athens  after  the  battle 
of  Salamis  (480  B.C.),  the  Athenians,  unwilling  to  be 
without  their  tyrant-slayers,  commissioned  Kritios  and 
Nesiotes  to  erect  a  new  group.  Antenor,  it  seems, 
was  dead,  and  these  two  sculptors,  since  little  else  is 
known  of  them,  may  have  been  his  pupils,  or  even  his 
assistants  when  he  made  the  original  group. 

By  means  of  several  copies  on  coins,  vases,  and  reliefs, 
two  figures  in  Naples,  PL  V,  Fig.  2,  and  page  158,  of  later 
Roman  workmanship  have  been  recognized  as  life-sized 
copies  of  the  Tyrannicide  groups.  For  many  years  it 
was  doubtful  whether  the  earlier  or  the  later  group 
was  preserved  in  these  statues,  but  a  recent  and  as  yet 
unpublished  acquisition  of  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine 
Arts  seems  to  decide  definitely  in  favor  of  the  later 
group.  But  even  if  this  conclusion  is  correct,  it  is 
wrong  to  see  nothing  in  these  figures  of  the  earlier 


l62 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


style,  because  doubtless  they  were  made  to  look  as 
much  like  the  Antenor  statues  as  possible.  For  this 
reason  they  may  well  be  said  to  form  the  connecting 
link  between  Greek  sculpture  before  and  after  the 
Persian  wars. 

The  originals  were  of  bronze,  and  did  not  need  the 
tree  trunks  by  which  the  Roman  copyist,  who  translated 
them  in  marble,  has  retarded  their  action.  Copious 
restorations  moreover,  partly  wrong,  have  altered  the 
appearance  of  the  statues  to  their  great  disadvantage. 

The  Restoration  of  Ancient  Statues 

There  is  something  to  be  said  in  favor  of  restoring 
ancient  figures,  and  the  average  visitor  to  the  museums 
is  right  when  he  prefers  to  look  upon  entire  men  and 
women.  But  he  must  not  forget  that  when  the  figure 
is  restored  he  is  no  longer  looking  at  a  piece  of  genuine 
Greek  or  Roman  workmanship.  The  restorer,  because 
he  had  not  much  to  guide  him,  has  often  taken  liberties. 
When,  for  instance,  as  in  the  present  case,  both  arms 
and  one  leg  of  the  Harmodios  statue,  and  the  head  and 
several  other  parts  of  the  Aristogeiton  were  lost,  how 
could  he,  with  his  slight  knowledge  of  the  antique,  know 
how  the  ancient  sculptor  had  planned  them  ?  Restora- 
tions, therefore,  had  better  not  be  made  on  the  originals. 
They  may,  however,  safely  and  advantageously  be  intro- 
duced in  casts,  where  there  is  no  difficulty  in  changing 
them  if  they  are  found  to  be  wrong. 


HARMODIOS  AND  ARISTOGEITON  163 

The  restorations  of  the  Tyrannicides  have  by  recent 
comparisons  with  coins,  vases,  etc.,  been  shown  to  be 
very  inaccurate.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  arms 
of  Harmodios.  The  restorer  believed  these  figures  to 
be  gladiators  fighting  one  another.  The  gestures  of 
Aristogeiton  are  aggressive;  Harmodios  was,  therefore, 
restored  as  on  the  defensive.  This  is  wrong;  for  both 
men  are  represented  as  advancing  against  a  common 
foe.  By  restoring  the  right  arm  of  Harmodios  sharply 
bent  over  his  head  and  ready  to  strike,  the  statue  gains 
in  unity  and  in  power;  for  every  line  of  the  body 
is  indicative  of  aggressive  onward  movement.  Of  the 
legs  sufficient  fragments  were  left  to  show  that  their 
restorations  are  substantially  correct. 

Harmodios  and  Aristogeiton 

Harmodios  is  rushing  upon  the  tyrant,  who  has  in- 
sulted his  sister.  His  step  is  quick  and  impetuous. 
The  muscles,  ever  ready  in  an  active  body,  have 
responded  to  the  call  of  the  emotions.  His  face,  how- 
ever, is  treated  with  such  simplicity  that  it  carries  for 
the  modern  taste  even  too  little  of  the  feeling  which  is 
surging  through  his  body,  and  under  which  his  chest 
is  thrown  out  with  great  impetuosity.  In  Harmodios 
there  is  a  touch  of  sublime  honesty  as  he  is  pushing 
forward  at  the  side  of  his  older  friend.  Aristogeiton, 
too,  is  full  of  firm  resolve,  but  somewhat  lacking  in 
enthusiasm.    His  step  is  less  quick  and  springy,  almost 


164 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


halting,  perhaps  to  show  that  he  is  aware  of  the  awful- 
ness  of  his  purpose.  His  body  is  more  firmly  knit,  and 
shows,  if  compared  with  that  of  Harmodios,  the  older 
man.  Such  age  differentiation  is  a  departure  from  the 
earlier  practice.  In  the  "Apollo"  statues  one  is  never 
tempted  to  ask,  How  old  is  he?  The  "Apollo"  is 
merely  a  grown-up  man,  any  man,  without  a  definite 
character  or  a  definite  age.  Not  so  the  Tyrannicides; 
for  both  Harmodios  and  Aristogeiton  have  a  distinct, 
though  not  clearly  circumscribed,  character  and  a  defi- 
nite age.  The  head  of  Aristogeiton  is  unfortunately 
lost;  the  present  head  of  the  statue  does  not  belong 
to  it,  for  it  is  a  copy  of  a  type  which  was  evolved 
nearly  a  century  later.  The  original  head  was  bearded, 
as  appears  from  copies  on  vase  paintings. 

The  freedom  of  action  in  these  figures  is  remark- 
able if  one  realizes  that  it  belongs  in  design,  if  not 
in  execution,  to  Antenor  in  the  last  decade  of  the 
sixth  century.  It  is  in  marked  contrast  to  the  con- 
strained movement  even  of  the  latest  "Apollos."  But 
they  were  of  heavy  marble,  while  these  figures  were 
of  bronze,  a  material  which  offered  fewer  difficulties. 
The  Tyrannicides,  therefore,  ought  to  be  compared 
with  reliefs  rather  than  with  marble  statues  in  the 
round;  and  then  it  is  not  difficult  to  find  analogies 
for  such  freedom,  for  instance  in  the  boy  offering 
the  cock  on  the  "  Harpy  "  tomb,  PI.  VI,  Fig.  3,  or  the 
Hermes  from  Thasos,  page  134.    The  Naples  group. 


REFLEX  ACTION  I 65 

nevertheless,  surpasses  even  these  figures  in  daring  of 
conception,  and  herein  probably  shows  the  improve- 
ments which  Kritios  and  Nesiotes  introduced  in  the 
original  design. 

One  of  the  most  hopeless  tasks  confronting  the 
earliest  artists  was  the  problem  of  rapid  movement 
through  space,  because  they  all  were  trying  to  solve  it 
by  actual  representation  rather  than,  as  was  done  later, 
by  suggestion.  The  Tyrannicides  may  be  said  to  hold 
an  intermediate  position  between  these  two  modes;  for 
the  inclination  of  the  body  of  Aristogeiton,  page  158, 
and  his  outstretched  hand  and  far-extended  right  leg 
clearly  indicate  the  step  he  is  to  take  next.  His  pose, 
however,  is  one  of  momentary  rest  between  his  long 
and  halting  steps,  and  not  one  of  movement.  There  is 
great  muscular  tension  in  the  upper  part  of  his  body; 
but  with  his  legs  gone  it  would  be  impossible  to  deter- 
mine whether  this  was  due  to  the  exertion  of  walking  or 
to  any  other  expression  of  energy,  as,  for  instance,  the 
leaning  forward  to  deal  a  blow  from  a  standing  position. 
This  latter,  of  course,  was  the  interpretation  which  the 
restorer  gave  of  the  pose  of  Aristogeiton. 

Reflex  Action 

In  vehement  action  it  is  not  only  the  legs  and  the 
arms  thrown  out  and  the  lines  of  the  torso  curved,  but 
every  part  of  the  body,  reflecting  the  controlling  energy, 
that  tells  the  story.    As  long  as  a  sculptor  conceives  of 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  prominent  parts  of  his  figures  as  put  together  instead 
of  grown  together,  thinking  of  bodies  the  members  of 
which  he  may  raise  or  lower  —  the  material  permitting 
—  as  he  does  with  a  jointed  doll,  he  cannot  carve  a 
figure  that  will  seem  to  live.  Only  when  he  advances 
to  the  understanding  of  the  human  body  as  one  com- 
plete, closely  knit,  integral  unit,  and  is  enabled  so  to 
represent  it,  has  he  begun  to  lay  hold  of  life  itself. 
Raise  your  arm  slowly,  and  the  reflex  action  upon  the 
rest  of  the  body  is  unnoticeably  slight;  deal  a  vigorous 
blow,  and  at  once  the  strength  of  the  gesture  can  be 
told  by  the  changes  that  accompany  it  in  other  parts 
of  the  body.  The  actual  lines  of  the  arm  carved  may 
be  the  same  in  both  cases.  Their  meaning,  however, 
differs  according  to  the  amount  of  vehemence  suggested 
by  the  rest  of  the  body. 

Myron  was  the  first  sculptor  who  clearly  understood 
these  principles  and  began  to  do  justice  to  them  in  his 
statues.  For  the  Romans  he  was  the  sculptor  of  life 
par  excellence ;  his  statues  were  imbued  with  anima,  the 
spirit  of  life,  which  distinguishes  the  animal  world  from 
inanimate  nature.  Animus,  however,  that  is  the  soul, 
which  is  the  characteristic  part  of  man  as  compared 
with  beasts,  he  did  not  know.  The  first  step  of  the 
Greeks  had  been  to  distinguish  the  visible  outlines  and 
masses  of  human  beings  from  other  things;  the  next 
step  was  to  feel  the  difference  between  man  and  inani- 
mate matter.    In  this  direction  Myron  was  the  leader. 


THE  STATUES  OF  MYRON  1 67 

The  third  step  was  still  to  be  taken,  and  consisted  in 
the  appreciation  of  that  side  of  man,  commonly  called 
his  nobler  self,  by  which  he  is  linked  to  the  gods. 

The  Statues  of  Myron 

How  utterly  Myron  missed  in  his  statues  this  side 
of  man,  and  how  he  bestowed  all  his  attention  upon  the 
"breath  of  life,"  is  proven  by  his  most  famous  statue, 
portraying  —  a  cow.  She  seemed  to  live;  and  many 
anecdotes  were  told  of  the  hardships  of  the  herdsmen 
who  had  to  drive  their  cattle  through  the  place  where 
she  stood.  The  animals,  mistaking  her  for  one  of  their 
own  kind,  stolidly  refused  to  leave  her  company.  It 
was  her  life  that  was  admired.  The  same  was  the  case 
with  the  most  famous  statue  of  a  man  by  Myron, 
—  his  Ladas.  Ladas  was  an  Olympic  victor  who  had 
paid  his  life  for  the  crown.  He  died  from  exhaustion 
immediately  after  crossing  the  line. 

The  bronze  statue  which  Myron  made  of  him  has  long 
since  disappeared,  without  leaving  as  much  as  a  copy. 
Some  ancient  epigrams,  however,  enable  us  to  form  an 
idea  of  the  conception  of  the  figure.  Translated  they 
read : 

Just  as  thou  wast,  O  living,  breathing  Ladas, 
When  thou  didst  race  the  fleeting  breath  of  life 
On  thy  tiptoes  with  every  muscle  strained ; 
Just  thus  the  artist  Myron  fashioned  thee  in  bronze, 
And  stamped  on  thy  whole  frame 
The  eager  yearning  for  the  crown  that  Pisa  gives. 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Or  again: 

Full  of  expectant  hope  he  is,  while  on  his  very  lips 
The  last  breath  lingers  that  has  left  his  hollow  flanks. 
Now,  now  the  bronze  will  leap  to  seize  the  crown ; 
The  base  no  longer  holds  him  back. 
Indeed  this  art  is  swifter  than  the  wind  ! 

Of  two  other  statues  by  Myron  Roman  copies  are 
extant.  They,  too,  having  been  designed  in  bronze, 
have  lost  in  the  marble  much  of  the  swiftness  that 
could  only  be  caught  in  bronze. 

The  Discus  Thrower 

The  Discus  Thrower  is  known  in  three  life-sized 
and  several  smaller  replicas,  of  which  a  small  bronze 
in  Munich,  although  of  inferior  workmanship,  approxi- 
mates more  nearly  than  the  others  the  light  pose  of 
the  original.  The  most  accurate  copy  is  said  to  be  a 
marble  in  the  Lancelotti  Palace  in  Rome,  which,  how- 
ever, is  so  anxiously  guarded  from  visitors  (in  the  fear 
of  being  proved  a  forgery?),  and  which  is  known  only 
from  such  poor  photographs,  that  a  final  verdict  of  its 
value  is  impossible.  If  genuine,  it  is  the  only  life-sized 
copy  of  the  statue  by  Myron  that  has  preserved  the 
head  in  its  proper  position,  looking  back  toward  the 
hand  with  the  discus.  On  the  other  two  important 
statues,  in  London,  page  i68,  and  in  the  Vatican  at 
Rome,  the  heads  are  wrongly  restored. 


Discus  Thrower  after  Myron 
(British  Museum) 


THE  DISCUS  THROWER  1 69 

The  actual  method  of  throwing  the  discus  in  anti- 
quity is  not  definitely  known.  Some  believe  that  this 
athlete  will  hurl  his  weapon  in  the  direction  of  his 
right  foot,  while  others  believe  that  he  will  make  a  few 
quick  steps  and  then  wheel  about  to  send  the  weapon 
back  of  him.  Whatever  he  will  do,  his  present  posi- 
tion is  instantaneous;  he  has  assumed  it  by  swift  mus- 
cular contraction,  and  will  leave  it  by  equally  swift 
extension.  This  shows  one  of  the  chief  excellences 
of  the  art  of  Myron,  which  was  to  catch  momentary 
poses,  preceded  and  followed  by  rapid  motion.  The 
spirit  of  life  surging  through  the  figure  suggests  the 
rapidity  of  movement  which  is  to  follow,  and  indicates 
the  swift  contraction  that  had  preceded.  The  statue 
in  this  respect  is  far  ahead  of  the  Aristogeiton.  Like 
him,  however,  it  does  not  attempt  to  portray  the  move- 
ment itself.  The  relation,  in  fact,  of  the  two  figures  is 
even  more  intimate  than  appears  at  first;  for,  if  one 
compares  them,  one  sees  how  naturally  the  conception 
of  the  one  grew  from  that  of  the  other.  And,  what  is 
even  more  noticeable,  both  figures,  in  spite  of  their 
twist,  are  designed  for  one  definite  plane. 

The  Marsyas 

The  same  is  true  of  the  Marsyas  by  Myron.  The 
restorer  overlooked  this  fact.  Finding  the  statue  with 
broken  arms,  and  thinking  of  some  later  Roman  rep- 
resentations of  dancing  fauns  or  satyrs,  he  supplied  the 


170 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


torso  with  bent  arms  and  castanets.  These  additions 
are  suggestive  of  rhythmical  turning  and  swaying  move- 
ments, in  utter  disagreement  with  the  rest  of  the  body; 
Marsyas,  PI.  X,  Fig.  2,  is  simply  recoiling, 

Like  a  man  who  has  seen  a  snake  and  then  darteth  backward. 

Athena,  so  the  story  goes,  had  invented  the  pipes 
(flutes),  but  seeing  her  inflated  cheeks  reflected  in  a 
brook,  she  had  thrown  them  away.  Marsyas  thereupon 
had  stealthily  crept  up  behind  her,  ready  to  seize  the 
instruments  in  the  hope  of  announcing  them  as  his  own 
invention.  Just  as  he  stooped  to  pick  them  up,  Athena 
turned  in  wrath,  and  Marsyas  recoiled.  This  is  the  mo- 
ment represented  by  Myron.  The  next  instant  Mar- 
syas will  collect  himself  and  dart  away.  It  is,  therefore, 
again  the  moment  of  instantaneous  rest  between  rapid 
movements  that  supplied  the  motive. 

Moderation 

Both  the  Discus  Thrower  and  the  Marsyas  give  proofs 
of  another  noteworthy  characteristic  of  Myron,  —  his 
extreme  moderation.  The  youth  with  the  discus  could 
easily  turn  a  little  more  to  his  right,  or  bend  slightly 
more  in  his  knees,  or  raise  his  arm  still  higher,  and 
gain  thereby  in  apparent  strength.  He  would  lose, 
however,  one  of  his  greatest  charms,  —  the  charm  of 
reserved  force.  One  may  do  a  thing  ever  so  well,  but 
if  one  shows  that  one  has  come  to  the  end  of  one's 


MODERATION 


171 


resources  the  charm  of  perfection  is  gone;  for  the  ease 
with  which  a  thing  is  done  is  the  surest  promise  of 
still  greater  accomplishments. 

The  head  of  Marsyas  is  an  interesting  study,  show- 
ing that  Myron  here,  in  strong  contrast  to  his  predeces- 
sors, endeavored  to  depict  the  national  characteristics  of 
the  race  to  which  his  man  belonged.  Marsyas  was  a 
demi-savage,  with  long,  un-Greek  beard  and  moustache 
and  cunning  Mongolian  eyes. 

The  heads  of  the  Discus  Thrower  statues  are  perhaps 
the  least  interesting  parts,  for  attention  is  centered  in 
the  twist  of  the  body,- — that  is  to  say,  the  action.  The 
hair  of  the  head  is  simply  blocked  out,  without  veri- 
similitude to  nature,  and  the  features  fail  to  show  even 
their  appropriate  amount  of  physical  energy.  The  same 
is  true  of  the  other  outlying  parts  of  the  body,  except 
perhaps  the  feet,  which  grasp  the  ground  with  remark- 
able force. 

Pliny's  Verdict  of  Myron 

On  the  whole,  one  is  not  astonished  to  hear  Pliny 
sum  up  what  he  has  to  say  of  Myron  in  these  words: 
"  He  appears  to  have  been  the  first  and  foremost  sculp- 
tor to  extend  the  province  of  lifelike  representation  in 
art,  .  .  .  yet  he,  too,  expended  his  care  on  the  physical 
aspect  of  the  body,  and  did  not  represent  the  accom- 
panying sensations  of  the  mind,  nor  did  he  show  any 


172 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


improvement  from  the  rude  practices  of  early  art  in  the 
treatment  of  the  hair." 

It  is,  therefore,  the  vigor  and  comparative  freedom  of 
his  conception  which  entitle  Myron  to  be  ranked  as  the 
foremost  artist  of  the  transitional  period,  rather  than  his 
technical  skill  or  neatness  of  workmanship.  In  these 
latter  directions  the  advance  was  heralded  by  two  other 
men,  Pythagoras  and  Kalamis.  Very  Httle  is  definitely 
known  of  them,  and  although  Dr.  Waldstein  has  made 
it  more  than  probable  that  the  type  of  a  statue  known 
as  the  "Apollo  with  the  Omphalos,"  PI.  XI,  Fig.  i,  goes 
back  to  Pythagoras,  and  others  are  ready  to  assign  to 
Kalamis  the  magnificent  statue  of  a  charioteer  recently 
discovered  in  Delphi,  PI.  XI,  Fig.  2,  both  attributions  are 
still  open  to  doubt. 

Pythagoras;  Telling  Use  of  Details 

The  argument  of  Dr.  Waldstein,  especially  when  rear- 
ranged and  strengthened,  is  so  interesting  and  gives 
such  an  excellent  insight  in  the  treatment  of  such  dis- 
cussions that  it  cannot  be  overlooked.  In  substance  it 
is  to  the  effect  that  the  statues  copying  the  type  which 
goes  under  the  name  of  the  "Apollo  with  the  Omphalos  " 
are  statues  of  a  boxer. 

Victor  statues  did  not  always  show  the  athletes 
engaged  in  the  sport  in  which  they  had  won,  a  fact 
which  compelled  the  sculptors  to  distinguish  them 
by  means  of  their  physical  development.    The  best 


TELLING  USE  OF  DETAILS  1 73 

trained  muscles  of  a  runner  are  in  his  legs,  and  those 
of  a  boxer  in  the  upper  part  of  his  body.  The  shoul- 
ders and  upper  arms  of  this  "  Apollo  "  type  are  so  splen- 
didly developed,  and  the  blood  courses  in  them  so  freely 
in  large  veins,  that  they  attract  immediate  attention. 
They  convey  the  idea  that  this  man  put  the  muscles 
of  the  upper  part  of  his  body  more  habitually  in  use 
than  any  other;  in  other  words,  that  he  was  a  boxer. 
The  Roman  copy,  moreover,  of  this  type  in  the  British 
Museum,  PL  XI,  Fig.  3,  contains  on  the  tree  trunk  an 
oblong  object  which  cannot  be,  as  has  often  been 
erroneously  asserted,  a  broken  bow,  and  which  may  be 
a  leather  thong  such  as  boxers  in  ancient  times  used 
in  the  place  of  the  modern  glove.  If  this  interpreta- 
tion is  correct,  it  proves  that  the  Roman  copyist  at  least 
understood  the  original  to  represent  an  athlete.  The 
style  of  the  statue  unmistakably  assigns  it  to  the  period 
of  transition.  The  most  famous  boxer  statue  of  this 
period,  however,  was  made  by  Pythagoras.  That  a 
famous  work  is  copied  in  these  "Apollo  with  the 
Omphalos  "  statues  cannot  be  doubted,  since  fragments 
of  a  great  many  are  extant.  They  may  therefore  ^go 
back  to  Pythagoras.  This  tentative  attribution,  finally, 
of  the  original  statue  to  Pythagoras  gains  much  in 
probability  when  it  is  learned  from  the  verdict  of  the 
ancients  that  the  telling  use  of  veins  was  the  great 
force  of  this  artist.  Pythagoras  was  also  praised  for  his 
care  in  the  treatment  of  the  hair;  and  of  all  the  statues 


174 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


of  this  period  none  show  such  delicate  locks  and  such 
well-arranged  hair,  treated  ornamentally  in  itself,  as  these 
particular  statues. 

These,  in  short,  are  Dr.  Waldstein's  arguments  in 
favor  of  assigning  this  "Apollo"  type  to  Pythagoras. 
And  it  must  be  conceded  that  he  has  made  out  a 
stronger  case  than  often  appears  in  similar  attempts. 
Even  the  attribution  of  the  Discus  Thrower  to  Myron 
cannot  be  said  to  rest  on  better  grounds. 

Grace  and  Delicate  Workmanship;  Kalamis 

Very  different  from  the  achievements  of  Myron  and 
Pythagoras,  both  of  whom  worked  almost  exclusively 
in  the  nude,  was  the  contribution  which  Kalamis  made 
to  the  art  of  sculpture.  He  was  most  highly  praised 
for  the  "comely  arrangement  and  the  order  of  the 
drapery  "  of  one  of  his  figures,  whose  "  nameless  grace  " 
and  "  noble  and  unconscious  smile  "  also  are  mentioned, 
and  thus  appears  to  be  the  worthy  successor  to  the 
sculptors  of  the  draped  Akropolis  ladies.  None  of  his 
many  other  works  has  received  a  careful  description, 
although  his  horses  are  singled  out  as  remarkably 
good.  It  is  perhaps  no  mere  accident  that  we  hear 
of  the  cow  of  Myron  and  the  horses  of  Kalamis.  The 
cow  is  not  an  especially  worthy  subject  in  itself;  it  is 
the  spirit  of  life  with  which  Myron  imbued  her,  that 
made  of  her  a  work  of  art.  The  horse,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  the  noblest  animal  of  creation,  next  to  man. 


DELICATE  WORKMANSHIP  1 75 

and  would  naturally  appeal  to  Kalamis,  whose  strong 
point  was  not  the  instilling  of  the  spirit  of  life  but 
the  nobility  of  treatment  which  added  to  his  figures 
"that  nameless  grace."  It  was  coupled,  to  be  sure, 
as  Cicero  says, — and  this  need  not  surprise  one  con- 
sidering the  early  date  of  the  artist,  —  with  a  certain 
severity. 

The  Greeks  and  Romans  liked  Kalamis  well;  and 
it  is  therefore  especially  unfortunate  that  it  has  not 
yet  become  possible  to  identify  definitely  any  extant 
statue  with  his  work.  Even  the  recently  discovered 
Charioteer  of  Delphi,  PL  XI,  Fig.  2,  whom  Homolle 
would  assign  to  Kalamis,  cannot  be  claimed  for  him 
without  grave  doubts.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that  the 
Charioteer  exhibits  a  style  not  incompatible  with  what 
is  known  of  the  style  of  Kalamis. 

The  Charioteer  of  Delphi 

The  Charioteer  was  discovered  during  the  French 
excavations  in  Delphi,  in  1896,  and  at  once  found  its 
way  to  popular  favor.  Spare  and  simple  in  treatment, 
he  is  yet  full  of  dignity.  The  modeling  of  the  nude, 
especially  in  the  preserved  right  arm,  is  exquisite.  In 
the  face  a  certain  severity  is  felt,  which  once  probably 
was  moderated  by  the  expression  of  the  inlaid  eyes. 
The  dimensions  of  the  large  nose  and  the  long  chin 
carry  definite  reminders  of  earlier  works,  most  of  which 
exhibit  similarly  liberal  proportions.    The  feet  are  very 


176 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


well  done,  although  they  do  not  look  so  in  existing 
photographs.  The  hair  on  the  top  of  the  head,  where 
it  could  not  be  seen,  is  flat,  while  the  locks  on  the  tem- 
ples continuing  down  the  cheeks  as  the  first  growth 
of  a  beard  are  well  conceived  and  neatly  executed. 
The  drapery  is  grand  in  its  simplicity,  while  the 
threatened  monotony  of  its  long,  deep,  parallel  folds  is 
relieved  by  the  constant  play  of  light  and  shade  as  on 
a  fluted  column.  It  is  perhaps  this  resemblance  to  a 
column  that  gives  the  figure  its  unwonted  appearance 
of  stability. 

In  appreciating  the  Charioteer,  however,  it  must 
never  be  forgotten  that  he  was  only  a  part  of  a  group; 
for  sufficient  fragments  have  been  found  to  show  that 
he  once  stood  in  a  chariot  drawn  by  several  horses, 
and  that  he  was  accompanied  by  at  least  one  other 
figure. 

The  entire  monument  was  dedicated  —  according  to 
the  discovered  inscription  —  by  Polyzalos,  the  younger 
brother  of  the  tyrants  of  Syracuse,  and  dates  from 
about  475  b.c.  Only  the  legs  of  some  of  the  horses 
are  extant,  and  it  is  of  course  impossible  to  draw 
definite  conclusions  from  them;  they  show,  however, 
the  simplicity  of  treatment  and  the  accuracy  of  observa- 
tion noted  in  the  Charioteer.  The  base  of  the  monu- 
ment was  cut  of  local  stone,  while  the  monument  itself 
was  without  any  doubt  cast  at  one  of  the  great  art 
centers  of  Greece  or  lower  Italy. 


A  PERIOD  OF  TRANSITION  177 

Whether  there  were  many  art  centers  besides  the 
few  in  Greece,  and  in  Rhegion  in  Italy  where  Pytha- 
goras worked,  we  do  not  know.  Tradition  in  this 
respect  is  scant.  The  achievements,  however,  of  the 
three  decades  after  the  Persian  wars,  habitually  gathered 
about  a  trio  of  great  men,  are  so  tremendous  that 
they  would  seem  to  be  the  result  of  the  joint  work  of 
many  minds.  The  principle  of  suggestion  was  followed, 
character  and  age  differentiations  were  introduced,  the 
meaning  of  reflex  action  was  understood,  moderation 
was  practiced,  while  the  details  of  the  composition 
were  carefully  executed  and  used  with  telling  exact- 
ness. It  is  upon  these  combined  achievements  that 
subsequent  artists  built  their  successes.  But  even  with- 
out them  the  earlier  artists  had  started  toward  the 
goal  which  they  had  dimly  conceived  but  never  been 
able  to  reach. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

SCULPTURED  TEMPLE  DECORATIONS 

In  the  gradual  advance  of  Greek  sculpture  one  branch 
was  destined  to  play  a  prominent  part, — the  decoration 
of  temples.  The  oldest  Greek  temple  of  the  familiar 
classic  shape  is  the  Heraion  in  Olympia,  which  is  now 
in  ruins,  having  left  no  definite  traces  of  sculptured 
decorations.  Some  of  the  earliest  remains  of  that  kind 
were  found  on  the  Akropolis  of  Athens,  and  date  from 
the  beginning  and  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century. 
They  were  carved  in  brown  local  soft  stone  {poros) 
and  were  completely  covered  with  paint.  Almost  all 
of  them  were  used  to  decorate  the  triangular  gables 
of  temples,  called  pediments,  PL  XII,  Fig.  i,  and  offer 
valuable  indications  of  the  care  with  which  already  in 
the  earliest  times  the  sculptors  endeavored  to  adapt 
their  compositions  to  the  peculiar  shape  of  the  space 
which  they  were  to  fill.  Very  few  are  well  enough  pre- 
served to  allow  a  detailed  study  both  of  their  execution 
and  their  conception.  The  most  interesting  is  one 
of  the  heads  of  a  three-bodied  monster,  the  Typhon, 
PI.  XIV,  Fig.  3,  whose  hair  is  blue  and  whose  eyes  are 
green.    The  color  in  this  case,  therefore,  was  merely 

applied  to  differentiate  the  several  parts  of  the  head, 

178 


SCULPTURED  TEMPLE  DECORATIONS  179 

with  no  attempt  to  approximate  natural  semblance. 
This,  however,  was  probably  not  the  universal  prac- 
tice of  later  times,  for  it  was  here  merely  resorted 
to  as  a  means  of  adding  to  the  monstrosity  of  the 
Typhon. 

The  treatment  of  the  eye  and  of  the  brow  is  ex- 
tremely interesting,  because  it  offers  a  better  suggestion 
of  the  actual  condition  of  the  artistic  conceptions  of 
the  time  than  the  contemporaneous  and  subsequent 
marble  sculptures,  where  the  more  difficult  technique 
often  prevented  the  artist  from  correctly  expressing  his 
ideas.  Tufa,  on  the  other  hand,  is  very  readily  carved, 
and  offers  no  obstacles,  or  at  least  very  slight  ones.  The 
characteristic  differences  of  the  upper  and  lower  lids 
are  not  felt,  while  the  depth  of  the  eye  below  the  brow 
is  to  some  extent  understood.  The  ear  also,  with  its 
intricate  volutes,  is  far  ahead  of  many  marble  sculptures 
before  the  Persian  wars. 

The  Typhon  was  designed  to  fill  one  half  of  a  pedi- 
ment. His  three  bodies,  therefore,  gradually  diminished 
in  height,  ending  in  tapering  coils  of  snakes.  Snakes 
can  assume  almost  any  shape  without  seeming  violence 
to  their  appearance,  and  are  therefore  favorite  subjects 
for  early  pedimental  decorations.  In  another  fragment 
from  the  Akropolis  the  hundred-headed  Hydra,  which 
Herakles  was  sent  to  kill,  fills  one  half  of  the  compo- 
sition, while  lolaos  and  the  chariot  fill  perhaps  the 
greater  part  of  the  other  half.    Almost  four  centuries 


i8o 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


later  Greek  sculptors  again  resorted  to  the  representa- 
tion of  coils  of  snakes  when  they  were  obliged  to  deco- 
rate the  approach  to  the  great  altar  at  Pergamon  which 
was  cut  up  by  a  row  of  steps. 

Restrictions  of  Large  Pedimental  Compositions 

When  the  temples  began  to  be  larger,  and  more 
figures  had  to  be  introduced,  the  problem  of  how  to  fill 
the  triangular  pediments  presented  itself  again  more 
urgently  and  in  a  more  complex  form.  The  pediment 
was  preeminently  an  important  architectural  part;  the 
horizontal  appearance  of  its  floor  had  to  be  preserved 
at  all  cost,  so  the  figures  were  not  to  be  raised  on  dif- 
ferent levels,  as  that  would  have  detracted  from  the 
essential  straightness  of  the  line  above  the  columns. 
The  roof  was  slanting  from  the  center  toward  the  cor- 
ners, which  made  it  impossible  to  design  the  figures  of 
equal  heights.  Human  figures,  however, —  and  it  is  they 
which  the  Greeks  at  all  times  preferred,  —  are  all  of 
about  the  same  size,  a  fact  which  made  it  necessary  to 
account  for  differences  in  height  by  differences  in  posi- 
tion rather  than  in  size.  The  positions  of  the  figures, 
therefore,  were,  within  certain  limits,  prescribed,  and 
unless  the  artist  was  willing  to  appear  as  the  slave  of 
the  space,  he  had  to  design  his  composition  so  that  the 
kneeling  or  reclining  figures  of  his  groups  were  ex- 
plained by  the  central  idea  controlling  his  composition. 
They  were  not  permitted  to  appear  to  be  due  to  their 


PEDIMENTAL  COMPOSITIONS  i8l 

accidental  location  nearer  to  or  farther  away  from  the 
center. 

Another  difficulty  was  due  to  the  fact  that  a  pediment, 
which  is  one  complete  unit  in  itself,  requires  one  united 
composition  for  its  decoration.  Moreover,  it  does  not 
permit  a  continuous  story  to  be  told  from  left  to  right 
or  vice  versa,  because  the  architectural  center  line,  to 
which  and  from  which  everything  tends,  is  absolute. 
The  attempt  to  cross  the  center  slightly  has  at  times 
been  successful,  but  the  story  never  can  continue  over 
to  the  other  corner  without  doing  great  violence  to  the 
architectural  design.  This  of  course  compelled  the  artist 
to  arrange  his  composition  in  two  sharply  divided  halves 
which  yet  were  to  form  one  whole.  And  here  again,  of 
course,  the  great  artist  would  desire  to  have  the  division 
of  his  composition  appear  to  be  the  natural  outcome  of 
his  conception,  and  by  no  means  dependent  on  outside 
considerations.  No  sculptors  before  the  Parthenon  can 
be  said  to  have  been  entirely  successful,  and  even  in  the 
Parthenon  it  is  perhaps  only  the  east  pediment  which 
is  satisfactory. 

The  pedimental  compositions  of  two  large  temples 
antedating  the  Parthenon  are  known  at  the  present  day. 
Those  from  Aigina  were  excavated  in  1811  and  are  now 
in  Munich ;  they  were  restored  under  the  supervision  of 
the  Danish  sculptor  Thorwaldsen,  and  have  received  a 
few  additions  from  more  recent  excavations ;  those  from 
the  large  temple  of  Zeus  at  Olympia  were  found  during 


l82 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  German  excavations  (i 875-1881)  and  are  preserved 
unrestored  in  a  museum  built  near  the  spot. 

The  Temple  of  Aigina 

The  exact  date  of  the  great  temple  on  the  rocky  coast 
of  the  island  of  Aigina  is  unknown.  On  account  of  its 
pretentious  dimensions  and  of  the  style  of  its  architectu- 
ral and  sculptural  decorations  it  can  hardly  antedate  the 
Persian  wars.  Nor  can  it  be  later  than  between  470 
and  460  B.C.,  for  by  that  time  the  fierce  struggle  between 
Aigina  and  Athens  had  begun  which  ended  in  Aigina's 
annexation  by  her  great  rival  and  the  complete  loss  of 
her  national  independence.  Even  the  deity  to  whom 
the  temple  was  dedicated  is  not  definitely  known.  Per- 
haps it  was  Athena,  who  appears  as  the  central  figure  on 
both  pediments,  but  more  likely  a  local  and  not  gener- 
ally known  goddess,  Aphaia,  whose  name  in  important 
inscriptions  was  found  by  Professor  Furtwangler  in  his 
recent  excavations  of  one  and  two  years  ago,  and  whose 
temple  is  mentioned  by  Pausanias. 

Only  the  fragments  of  the  west  pediment  were  suffi- 
ciently well  preserved  to  allow  of  a  complete  restoration, 
PI.  XII,  Fig.  I.  Later  finds,  however,  have  shown  that 
slight  changes  in  the  arrangement  of  the  figures  must 
be  made.  A  few  more  ought  to  be  introduced,  so  that 
there  will  be  fourteen  in  all.  This  brings  the  warriors 
in  closer  touch  with  one  another,  and  adds  to  the  idea  of 
a  confused  battle  scene  without  complicating  the  lines 


THE  TEMPLE  OF  AIGINA  183 

unpleasantly  for  the  spectator.  The  subject  appears 
to  be  very  well  chosen,  for  a  battle  scene  is  naturally 
divided  in  halves.  The  fallen  warrior  in  the  center, 
whom  both  friends  and  foes  are  endeavoring  to  pull  over 
to  safety  or  to  destruction,  forms  the  connecting  link. 
The  attention  of  the  beholder  is  centered  in  him,  espe- 
cially as  he  is  seen  lying  at  the  feet  of  the  goddess 
Athena. 

/The  introduction  of  Athena  to  fill  the  large  center 
space  is  less  satisfactory,  because,  being  motionless, 
she  is  foreign  to  the  general  idea  of  the  composition. 
Standing  in  the  very  middle  between  the  armies,  the 
goddess  does  not  even  indicate  where  the  victory  will 
be.  Nor  has  the  artist  been  successful  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  battle  scene  itself  and  the  grouping  of  the 
men.  The  kneeling  postures  of  the  bowmen  are  natural 
enough,  but  the  men  back  of  them,  or  according  to  the 
new  arrangement  in  front  of  them,  who  are  fighting 
with  long  spears,  are  too  obviously  crouching  because 
the  slanting  roof  did  not  permit  them  to  stand  erect  as 
did  the  other  spearmen  nearer  the  center.  They  have, 
moreover,  no  definite  opponents,  because  the  strict  divi- 
sion of  the  warriors  into  two  hostile  camps  made  that 
impossible.  The  subject  of  a  well-arranged  battle  is 
therefore,  after  all,  not  the  best  for  a  pedimental  deco- 
ration. The  wounded  warriors  farthest  from  the  melee 
are  well  introduced  as  lying  in  the  corners ;  and  because 
they  naturally  belong  there,  they  make  the  spectator 


1 84  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

completely  forget  the  limitation  of  the  space  under 
which  they  are  carved. 

For  the  discussion  of  the  several  figures  it  is  better 
to  turn  to  the  east  pediment,  where  more  careful  and 
skillful  modeling  is  shown.  In  every  other  respect  the 
two  pediments  are  identical.  They  contain  the  same 
number  of  figures  in  the  same  positions.  This  is  ex- 
tremely rare  in  sculpture,  where  the  Greeks  generally 
avoided  repetitions.  In  Aigina,  however,  the  sculptors 
repeated  exactly  not  only  one  pedimental  group  in  the 
other,  but  also  balanced  the  two  halves  of  the  compo- 
sition with  an  almost  monotonous  sameness. 

One  of  the  most  expressive  figures  of  the  east  pedi- 
ment is  the  fallen  warrior,  PI.  XIII,  Fig.  i,  in  the  left-hand 
corner.  Neither  he  nor  the  other  fallen  men  are  repre- 
sented as  dead  and  flat  on  their  backs  (as  they  would 
probably  have  been  represented  in  a  painting),  because 
at  their  considerable  height  the  slightly  projecting  floor 
of  the  pediment  would  have  completely  hidden  them. 
The  others  have  simply  raised  themselves  on  their 
arms,  so  that  they  practically  fall  in  the  plane  along 
which  the  beholders  glance  up  at  them.  This  warrior, 
however,  if  he  were  to  arrest  the  eye,  had  to  make 
one  more  twist  in  order  to  point  his  breast  down- 
ward to  meet  the  glance  of  the  spectator.  Thus  he  is 
here  represented ;  but  the  constrained  twist  is  beauti- 
fully explained  by  the  attitude  of  the  figure  itself.  The 
man  has  received  his  death  wound, —  he  has  fallen, — 


THE  FALLEN  WARRIOR  185 

but  his  indomitable  will  still  controls  his  body,  and  he 
endeavors  to  rise.  His  efforts  are  vain.  Unable  to  lift 
himself,  he  tries  to  turn  over  so  that  the  strength  of  his 
arms  may  assist  him ;  but  even  this  is  of  little  avail,  and 
soon  he  will  collapse. 

The  daring  simplicity  of  the  conception  is  all  but 
incredible  so  soon  after  the  Persian  wars.  It  was,  in 
fact,  too  much  for  the  artist's  skill,  for  he  was  utterly 
unable  to  represent  the  twist  from  the  abdomen  to  the 
breast.  He  knew  this,  and  therefore  placed  the  right 
arm  in  a  position  which  was  designed  to  hide  the  lack 
of  connection  between  these  two  vital  parts  of  the  body. 
The  arm  again  is  so  well  introduced,  and  its  position 
so  naturally  explained  by  the  composition  of  the  figure, 
that  one  does  not  suspect  the  defects  which  it  hides 
until  one  steps  close  up  to  the  original,  or  the  cast,  and 
looks  behind  it,  PI.  XIII,  Fig.  2.  These  defects  are  not 
due  to  carelessness,  or  the  thought  that  they  cannot  be 
seen ;  for  all  the  figures,  and  even  the  back  of  this  war- 
rior, which  was  supposed  to  be  forever  invisible,  are  so 
well  carved  that  the  poor  chest  and  abdomen  here,  which 
do  not  naturally  grow  or  flow  together,  must  be  explained 
as  due  to  the  insufficient  skill  of  the  sculptor  and  his 
inaccurate  knowledge  of  anatomy. 

Another  characteristic  figure  is  the  standing  warrior, 
page  178,  to  the  right  of  Athena.  His  hand  is  raised 
with  the  spear,  his  legs  astride;  but  in  spite  of  his 
pose  he  does  not  appear  to  be  moving  or  to  be  ready 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


to  hurl  his  spear.  His  position  is  not  unlike  that  of 
Aristogeiton,  but  he  lacks  reflex  action;  he  is  more 
like  a  jointed  doll,  and  entirely  without  the  spirit  of 
life,  —  without  the  anima  which  it  was  Myron's  mission 
to  teach  and  to  exemplify.  What  is  true  of  this  figure 
is  true  of  almost  all,  except  the  fallen  warrior  in  the 
south-end  corner:  they  are  lifeless;  they  are  not  men 
but  pictures  of  men.  The  entire  composition,  there- 
fore, is  unable  to  prove  continuously  interesting.  The 
spearman  will  never  hurl  his  weapon,  the  bowman  will 
not  shoot  his  arrow,  and  the  friend  will  never  drag  the 
wounded  into  safety.  And  all  this  in  spite  of  the 
greatest  freedom  of  gestures  and  poses,  and  the  com- 
plete absence  of  extraneous  supports  to  mar  the  compo- 
sition, although  all  the  figures  are  carved  of  heavy 
marble.  The  bodies  are  there,  but  no  Prometheus  has 
as  yet  appeared  to  put  life  into  them  and  to  make 
them  move. 

The  study  of  the  faces  is  very  difficult,  because  so 
many  are  restored  wearing  the  same  expression,  and 
because  the  restorations  have  been  so  well  adapted  to 
what  was  left  of  the  figures  that  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  distinguish  between  them.  Even  the  corrosion  of 
the  marble  surface  has  been  artificially  imitated.  Of 
the  genuinely  antique  faces  not  all  are  alike  by  any 
means.  All  the  mouths,  to  be  sure,  show  the  curve  in 
front,  —  the  archaic  smile  as  it  is  erroneously  called,  — 
but  they  exhibit,  nevertheless,  pronounced  differences. 


BORROWED  ATHENA  TYPE  187 

If  one  has  once  carefully  studied  the  expression  of  the 
bowman  in  Asiatic  garb  in  the  south  wing  of  the  west 
pediment,  one  will  never  again  be  tempted  to  call  the 
curved  mouth  of  the  wounded  man  in  the  north  cor- 
ner of  the  same  pediment,  as  is  often  done,  a  smiling 
mouth.  His  mouth  is  rather  expressive  of  great  pain 
borne  with  fortitude  and  that  reliance  upon  the  gods 
which  characterized  the  Greeks  even  in  the  hour  of 
death. 

There  is  a  noticeable  incongruity  between  the  free- 
dom of  the  male  figures  and  the  constrained  represen- 
tation of  the  goddess  Athena,  PI.  XV,  Fig.  i.  It  has 
even  been  suggested  that  she  was  purposely  carved  in 
an  older  style  in  order  to  indicate  that  she  was  present 
not  in  person  but  merely  as  a  temple  image.  A  temple 
image,  however,  seems  strangely  out  of  place  in  a  battle 
scene.  The  correct  explanation  of  Athena's  restrained 
position  is  probably  found  in  the  fact  that  the  Aigina 
sculptors  had,  as  we  know  from  literature,  much  prac- 
tice in  carving  nude  male  figures,  but  had  almost  com- 
pletely neglected  the  representation  of  women.  The 
Athena  from  Aigina  bears  some  resemblance  to  the 
draped  figures  from  the  Akropolis,  while  the  folds 
hanging  down  from  her  arms  are  not  unlike  those 
from  the  "Harpy"  tomb.  It  is  therefore  not  at  all 
unlikely  that  the  Aiginetan  sculptors  borrowed  an  old 
type  somewhere  for  their  Athena,  while  they  designed 
their   male   figures  in   accordance   with    their  own 


i88 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


well-developed  style.  They  were  preeminently  sculp- 
tors in  bronze,  and  the  clearness  of  outline  which  that 
style  is  apt  to  foster  shows  in  every  one  of  their  figures. 

Olympia 

The  Olympia  figures,  Pis.  X,  XIII-XVI,  and  pages 
1 8  and  i88,  in  strong  contrast  to  those  of  Aigina,  show 
unmistakable  signs  of  marble  technique,  and  are  full 
of  those  delicate  suggestions  which  the  more  lifelike 
surface  of  marble  tempts  the  artist  to  indicate. 

The  evidence  as  to  the  date  of  the  great  temple 
of  Zeus  at  Olympia  is  summed  up  by  Mr.  Robinson  to 
the  effect  that  it  "was  begun  probably  about  the  year 
470,  with  booty  taken  by  the  Eleans  in  a  campaign 
against  their  neighbors,  the  architect  being  Libon,  a 
native  of  Elis.  Just  when  it  was  finished  is  not  known. 
Herodotus  speaks  of  it  as  complete  in  445,  but  it  must 
have  been  finished  some  time  before  then,  as  we  read 
of  the  Spartans  placing  a  golden  shield  on  the  apex  of 
the  eastern  pediment  after  a  battle  at  Tanagra  in  457." 
This  clearly  shows  that  the  temple  was  built  in  the 
period  of  transition  after  the  Persian  wars.  Pausanias, 
who  saw  the  temple  almost  intact  in  the  second  cen- 
tury of  our  era,  has  left  a  fairly  accurate  description  of 
its  pedimental  groups,  which,  though  apparently  not  cor- 
rect in  every  detail,  has  yet  been  of  invaluable  assist- 
ance in  arranging  the  broken  figures  in  complete  groups. 
The  subject  of  the  east  pediment  related  a  story  known 


Peirithoos 
(Olympia) 


CENTRAL  GROUP  OF  EAST  PEDIMENT  189 

as  the  "  chariot  race  of  Pelops  and  Oinomaos,"  and  the 
west  pediment  one  of  the  "struggles  of  the  Centaurs 
and  Lapiths  at  the  wedding  feast  of  Peirithoos." 

The  East  Pediment 

The  large  central  figure  of  the  east  gable,  PI.  XIV, 
Figs.  I  and  4,  is  Zeus,  whose  presence  is  appropriate 
only  because  this  is  his  temple,  for  he  takes  no  active 
part  in  the  story.  As  god  he  could  be  represented  of 
larger  proportions  than  the  other  people,  and  this  is 
probably  the  chief  reason  why  he  is  introduced.  To 
his  left  stands  the  king  Oinomaos,  who  by  the  treach- 
ery of  his  charioteer  was  destined  to  lose  in  this 
race.  He  was  known  to  have  perfidiously  slain  all  the 
other  suitors  who,  before  Pelops,  had  tried  to  win  his 
daughter  Hippodameia  by  the  only  possible  means, — 
a  race  against  the  king's  immortal  horses.  The  very 
fact  that  he  is  seen  on  the  left  side  of  Zeus  may 
indicate  his  waning  star  of  luck.  The  artist  has  thus 
turned  the  compulsory  presence  of  the  large  central  fig- 
ure to  good  advantage. 

Pelops  holds  the  right  of  Zeus.  He  is  a  man  of  slen- 
der proportions,  indicative  of  his  greater  youth  com- 
pared with  the  older  king.  He  is  accompanied  by  his 
bride-to-be,  whose  mother  stands  on  the  other  side  close 
to  Oinomaos.  These  five  figures,  which  form  the  cen- 
tral group,  are  satisfactory  by  themselves ;  for  gods 
are  naturally  larger  than  men,  and  men  taller  than 


IQO  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

women.  The  different  heights  of  the  figures,  therefore, 
do  not  appear  to  be  due  to  any  limitation  of  space. 
Considered  as  a  part  of  the  entire  composition,  this 
central  group  is  nevertheless  unsuccessful.  To  the 
right  and  left  of  the  women  the  pediment  was  narrow- 
ing down  too  much  to  admit  more  standing  figures, 
so  that  the  charioteers  and  the  grooms,  who  naturally 
would  be  standing,  had  to  be  introduced  in  crouch- 
ing or  in  kneeling  positions.  This  gives  to  the  two 
corner  groups  an  aspect  of  musing  restfulness  entirely 
out  of  keeping  with  the  central  figures,  whose  standing 
attitudes  are  suggestive  of  impending  activity.  The 
entire  composition  in  consequence  is  thus  broken  up 
into  three  unconnected  parts,  the  center  and  the  two 
corners,  instead  of  containing  only  two  parts,  as  the 
artist  evidently  had  intended  it  should,  —  Oinomaos 
and  Pelops  with  their  respective  retinues,  —  united  to 
one  whole  by  the  presence  of  Zeus.  The  two  four-horse 
chariots  fill  their  allotted  space  well,  but  the  reclining 
figures  in  the  corners,  conceived  probably  as  spectators, 
are  so  obviously  out  of  place  that  Pausanias  believed 
they  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  story  but  were  sym- 
bolic representations  of  river  gods. 

The  figures  on  the  right  and  the  left  of  the  cen- 
tral god  are  designed  with  special  care.  The  corre- 
sponding figures  in  Aigina  balanced  each  other  and 
were  practically  alike.  Here  such  an  identity  would 
have  been  inadmissible,  because  these  two  figures  are 


CENTRAL  GROUP  OF  EAST  PEDIMENT  191 

individuals  and  not  indefinite  representatives  of  a  class 
of  people.  The  artist  therefore  endeavored  to  bring 
out  in  their  poses  the  characteristic  differences  of  their 
dispositions.  The  self-relying  and  impious  Oinomaos, 
with  head  erect,  half  turns  his  shoulder  upon  the 
god,  and  rests  his  hand  with  fingers  outspread  on  his 
hip  in  a  nonchalant  way.  Pelops,  on  the  other  hand, 
though  sure  of  victory,  modestly  bends  his  head  in  the 
divine  presence.  Oinomaos  is  an  older  man,  and  this 
the  artist  endeavored  to  show  by  his  fuller  proportions. 
When  the  artist  later  proceeded  to  view  his  composi- 
tion as  a  whole,  he  found  that  the  slender  figure  of 
Pelops  did  not  well  balance  the  heavier  king  on  the 
other  side.  He  therefore  added  a  bronze  coat  of  mail 
to  the  younger  man,  as  is  attested  by  the  several  holes 
of  attachment  on  the  shoulders  and  below  the  abdomen. 
This  was  an  afterthought,  as  is  again  clearly  shown  by 
the  fact  that  the  entire  front  of  Pelops  was  beautifully 
finished  before  the  holes  were  bored,  while  on  the 
Olympian  figures  as  a  whole,  unlike  the  Aiginetan, 
only  those  parts  were  finished,  or  even  at  all  carved, 
which  were  meant  to  be  seen.  The  addition  of  the 
cuirass  was  an  exquisite  device,  for  it  enabled  the  artist 
to  attain  complete  balance  in  masses  without  giving 
up  the  touch  of  age  differentiation  which  was  offered 
by  the  slighter  body  of  the  younger  man. 

The  two  women  also  are  well  characterized  by  their 
poses  and  the  folds  of  their  drapery.    Sterope,  the 


192 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


consort  of  the  cruel  king,  stands  straight  and  almost 
stiff,  with  the  folds  of  her  garment  falling  in  long  parallel 
masses,  indicative  of  firmness.  Hippodameia  touches 
her  hand  modestly  to  her  chin,  and  her  garment  falls 
in  delicate  folds  to  her  feet.  Another  very  expressive 
figure  is  the  old  man,  PL  XV,  Fig.  2,  back  of  the  char- 
iot of  the  king.  The  heavy  wrinkles  of  skin  under  his 
rather  fat  breast,  his  half-bald  head,  and  his  long  locks 
are  sure  signs  of  his  advanced  age,  while  the  serious- 
ness of  his  expression  and  his  intent  gaze  into  the  dis- 
tance have  made  people  believe  they  saw  in  him  a  seer 
filled  with  dire  forebodings  of  the  outcome  of  the  race. 

One  of  the  very  best  figures  of  all  is  the  reclining 
youth,  PI.  XIII,  Fig.  3,  in  the  north  corner  of  the  pedi- 
ment, who  is  eagerly  gazing  into  space.  Probably 
thought  of  as  one  of  the  spectators  of  the  coming  race, 
he  has  raised  himself  on  his  elbows  in  order  to  see 
better,  and  this  has  given  him  such  a  magnificent  curve 
that  Pausanias  had  no  difficulty  in  seeing  in  him  a 
river  god.  Similar  representations  of  river  gods  were 
very  popular  in  Roman  times,  but  it  is  not  certain  that 
the  Greeks  of  the  fifth  century  had  developed  their 
ideas  far  enough  to  embrace  symbolic  personifications. 
The  twist  of  the  body,  no  matter  whom  the  figure  repre- 
sents, is  marvelous.  The  same  considerations  which 
led  to  the  carving  of  the  dying  warrior  on  the  east 
pediment  of  Aigina  may  also  account  for  the  Olympian 
boy,  who  in  lifelike  representation  is  far  ahead  of  that 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT  1 93 

older  statue.  There  the  chest  and  abdomen  are  simply 
put  together;  here  they  grow  together  in  wonderfully 
easy  and  flowing  masses,  the  very  shape  of  one  part 
indicating  the  position  of  the  other.  The  head,  in  spite 
of  its  expressive  gaze,  is  out  of  keeping  with  the  splen- 
did body.  Perhaps  the  artist  relied  upon  the  addition 
of  color;  the  hair,  for  instance,  is  only  blocked  out  to 
receive  the  paint.  It  must,  however,  never  be  forgot- 
ten that  these  figures  were  not  to  be  seen  close  at 
hand,  and  that  at  their  considerable  height  details  of 
fine  modeling  would  have  been  apt  to  disappear.  The 
eye,  nevertheless,  especially  when  compared  with  the 
mouth  and  the  nose,  betrays  a  remarkable  lack  of  accu- 
racy of  conception. 

The  West  Pediment 

The  east  pediment,  looked  at  as  a  whole,  is  in  lines 
very  quiet  and  restful ;  the  actors  are  introduced  who  are 
to  take  part  in  the  suggested  tragedy,  but  the  moment 
for  action  has  not  yet  arrived.  All  this  is  different 
in  the  west  pediment,  PI.  XIV,  Fig.  i,  where  an  active 
struggle  is  going  on.  The  peace  of  the  wedding  feast 
has  been  interrupted  by  the  centaurs,  who  have  snatched 
up  the  women  and  the  boys  and  are  making  away  with 
them.  Peirithoos  himself  and  his  friend  Theseus  are 
fighting  in  the  center,  while  Apollo,  the  patron  god  of 
the  Lapiths,  has  appeared  between  them  to  calm  the 
strife.    In  spite  of  his  commanding  gesture  he  takes  no 


194 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


active  part  in  the  struggle,  and  seems  to  have  been 
introduced  for  no  other  reasons  than  accounted  for  the 
presence  of  Zeus  in  the  east  pediment  and  of  Athena 
in  Aigina.  The  subject  of  the  battle  scene,  however,  is 
differently  treated  from  that  on  the  older  temple.  The 
combatants  are  not  divided  into  two  hostile  camps,  but 
are  mixed  up,  each  one  actually  struggling  with  a  real 
foe.  This  adds  life  to  the  composition,  and  shows  that 
the  sculptors  understood  the  defects  of  the  earlier  design. 
The  reclining  figures  of  old  women  in  the  corners  are 
technical  necessities.  Possibly  they  are  meant  to  be 
horrified  spectators,  guests  or  attendants  at  the  wedding 
feast,  but  they  are  too  obviously  introduced  to  fill  the 
narrowing  space  under  the  slanting  roof  to  be  altogether 
satisfactory.  The  artist,  however,  has  turned  their  pres- 
ence to  some  use,  for  reclining  on  cushions,  they  suggest 
an  indoor  scene.  In  Aigina  the  battle  was  raging  in  the 
open;  here  the  struggle  has  begun  in  the  festive  hall 
of  the  king.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  centaurs  are 
endeavoring  to  canter  away  from  the  center;  for  away 
from  the  center  toward  the  corners  is  the  direction 
which  suggests  the  flight  from  the  interior  to  the  open. 

The  grouping  of  the  figures  is  done  with  wonderful 
skill  and  with  full  understanding  of  the  devices  by 
■which  the  eye  is  readily  carried  from  one  person  to 
j)he  other.    The  three  prominent  people  in  the  center 
i'are  hardly  seen  when  the  action  of  the  youth  at  Apollo's 
right  directs  one's  attention  to  the  centaur  whom  he  is 


GROUPING  OF  THE  WEST  PEDIMENT  195 

trying  to  slay  before  the  beast  can  carry  off  the  girl. 
Centaur  and  girl  form  a  closely  knit  group,  which 
makes  it  easy  to  glide  over  to  the  next  two  figures  of 
equally  close  connection.  Here,  however,  the  extended 
arm  of  the  boy  seems  to  link  another  figure  to  them 
which,  in  thought,  belongs  to  the  final  group  of  this 
side.  The  constant  resolution  of  groups  in  masses  into 
new  groups,  according  to  thought,  makes  it  possible  to 
view  the  entire  composition  with  the  rapidity  that  the 
confused  battle  scene  demands.  The  movement  grows 
ever  swifter  toward  the  corners,  but  even  the  standing 
figures  in  the  center  have  an  intimate  connection  with 
the  fray,  and  with  the  more  violent  boys  in  the  corners, 
who  in  the  heat  of  combat  have  hurled  themselves 
bodily  upon  the  centaurs.  By  thus  tackling  their  oppo- 
nents they  are  brought  low  down  to  the  position  de- 
manded by  the  slanting  roof.  Their  attitude,  however, 
is  so  well  explained  by  their  action  that  the  spectator 
completely  forgets  the  limitations  of  space. 

All  this  simple  and  continuous  movement  is  lost  if 
one  keeps  to  the  original  and  mistaken  arrangement  of 
the  figures  as  they  were  first  put  together.  The  cen- 
taurs are  transposed  and  put  nearest  Apollo,  with  the 
two  youths  back  of  them.  This  brings  the  recoiling 
head  of  one  of  the  centaurs  near  the  outstretched  hand 
of  Apollo,  who,  so  the  advocates  of  this  arrangement 
reason,  by  his  gesture  repels  the  beast,  and  therefore 
is  no  longer  aimlessly  present.    This,  however,  is  a 


196 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


palpable  mistake;  for  it  is  not  the  god,  but  the  muscu- 
lar strength  of  the  arms  of  the  woman  that  forces  the 
bestial  head  backward.  It  is,  moreover,  impossible  to 
believe  that  the  centaur  would  continue  to  canter  into 
the  room  and  right  up  to  the  god  even  after  he  had 
felt  the  power  of  Apollo's  hand.  The  youth  back  of 
him,  finally,  is  so  large  that  were  he  placed  as  much 
nearer  the  corner  as  the  insertion  of  the  centaur  group 
between  him  and  Apollo  demanded,  he  would  reach  to 
the  very  roof  of  the  pediment  and  would  never  appear 
to  be  able  to  deal  his  blow.  Where  he  properly  be- 
longs, at  the  side  of  Apollo,  he  does  not  seem  cramped 
in  space ;  one  may  expect  to  see  him  bring  his  hatchet 
down  at  will.  These  are  formidable  objections  to  the 
old  arrangement ;  the  most  prohibitive,  however,  is  that 
it  spoils  the  continuity  of  the  design,  because  it  breaks 
the  entire  composition  into  three  unconnected  groups, 
Apollo  with  the  centaurs  and  the  youths  in  the  center, 
whence  there  is  no  transition  whatsoever  to  the  corner 
groups. 

The  large  Apollo  in  the  center,  page  18,  is  the  most 
impressive  figure.  He  does  not  actually  take  part  in 
the  fray,  and  yet  his  very  presence  seems  to  suggest 
defeat  for  the  beasts.  By  his  mere  gesture  he  domi- 
nates the  fight,  and  reminds  one  of  the  statement  of 
Aischylos,  that  "all  the  gods'  work  is  effortless  and 
calm."  He  was  originally  designed  with  a  small  cape 
slung  over  his  shoulder,  one  end  of  which  appeared 


THE  APOLLO  FROM  OLYMPIA  197 

over  his  left  hand.  But  when  the  artist  came  to  look 
upon  his  figure  as  a  part  of  the  entire  composition,  he 
noticed  that  the  broad  shoulders  of  the  god  and  his 
advanced  leg  gave  him  an  unpleasantly  wedge-shaped 
appearance.  He  therefore  added  several  pieces  below 
the  left  hand,  and  changed  the  garment  so  that  it  fell 
in  a  curve  from  the  hand  down  to  the  feet.  That  this 
was  an  afterthought,  just  as  the  cuirass  of  Pelops  was,  is 
readily  seen  from  the  many  fragments  of  the  extended 
robe  that  have  been  found,  and  from  the  arrangement 
of  the  cloak  on  the  back  of  the  statue,  which,  though 
merely  blocked  out  in  the  rough,  contradicts  the  present 
design. 

The  figure  was  intended  for  a  considerable  height, 
and  defects  in  modeling,  as  on  the  arms  and  breast, 
would  not  be  noticed.  Splendid  though  it  is,  it  shows 
how  far  the  artist  was  from  a  clear  conception  of  the 
human  form.  The  contours  of  the  front  and  the  back 
are  of  equal  width,  although  even  the  most  casual 
glance  at  a  model  would  have  shown  the  sculptor  the 
inaccuracy  of  such  a  representation.  The  head  is  a 
magnificent  piece  of  sculpture,  to  which  every  line  of 
the  figure  carries  the  eye.  The  features  are  in  keeping 
with  the  impression  of  majesty,  —  the  lips  full,  the  nose 
generous,  and  the  eye  frank  and  open.  The  orderly 
masses  of  the  hair,  without  any  pretense  to  natural 
semblance,  are  yet  completely  satisfactory;  the  hair  is 
long  and  rolled  up  at  the  neck  over  a  ribbon,  which 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


originally  was  made  of  bronze,  attached  to  the  hole 
behind  the  left  ear,  and  carried  along  over  it  in  a 
groove.  The  ear  is  too  large  and  tipped  too  far  back 
on  the  head  to  be  accurate,  for  in  nature  it  is  almost 
vertical;  so  that,  considering  the  tilt  of  the  head  here, 
it  ought  to  tilt  slightly  to  the  left.  But  like  all  Greek 
artists,  this  sculptor  took  liberties;  for  he  cared  more 
for  the  preservation  of  the  necessary  rhythm  of  his 
figure  than  for  accuracy  to  nature,  that  is  to  say,  objec- 
tive nature.  From  this  he  deviated  in  order  to  make 
a  more  forceful  and  more  pleasing  appeal  to  the  subjec- 
tive nature  of  his  spectators. 

A  splendid  touch  of  reality  he  introduced  in  his  com- 
position by  differentiating  between  the  modes  of  fight- 
ing resorted  to  by  the  several  persons.  The  men  in 
every  case  are  on  the  aggressive;  even  the  tender  boy 
reaches  forth  his  hand  to  deal  the  centaur  a  vicious 
blow.  The  women,  though  physically  fully  as  powerful 
as  the  boy,  are  invariably  on  the  defensive,  endeavoring 
to  keep  the  most  sacred  parts  of  their  bodies  intact  from 
the  touch  of  the  beast.  Deidameia,  the  bride,  who  may 
perhaps  be  recognized  by  her  full  robes  in  the  right 
wing  of  the  pediment  nearest  Apollo,  has  been  snatched 
away  by  the  centaur,  who  holds  her  tight  between  his 
fore  legs.  She  does  not  think  of  dealing  him  a  blow; 
her  only  thought  is  to  keep  his  voluptuous  head  from 
contact  with  her  own.  The  next  moment,  as  it  were, 
is  seen  on  the  corresponding  group  on  the  other  side, 


TOUCHES  OF  REALITY  1 99 

PL  X,  Fig.  2,  where  the  girl  has  released  his  head 
because  he  has  touched  her  breast.  She  tries  to  remove 
his  unholy  grasp  there,  without,  however,  forgetting  her 
•  first  intention,  for  she  is  still  warding  his  head  off  with 
her  elbow. 

On  the  other  side,  nearer  the  corner,  another  woman 
is  also  eagerly  struggling  to  get  the  centaur's  hand  away 
from  her  breast.  The  centaur  was  galloping  off  with 
the  girl  on  his  back,  when  he  was  tackled  by  one  of 
the  youthful  Lapiths  and  borne  down  with  such  power 
that  he  sunk  on  his  knees.  The  woman  slipped  from 
his  back,  but  was  tightly  held  by  her  foot  and  the  folds 
of  her  garment,  and  though  he  received  his  deathblow 
he  would  not  release  her.  The  corresponding  group 
near  the  left-hand  corner  is  very  similar,  except  that 
the  outcome  seems  less  clear,  for  the  Lapith  is  weapon- 
less. Again  the  woman  has  slipped  from  the  centaur's 
back;  again  she  is  caught,  but  this  time  by  the  hair. 
The  centaur  has  been  unable  to  take  hold  of  her  breast, 
and  her  only  endeavor,  therefore,  is  to  keep  his  head 
away  from  hers.  According  to  the  old  arrangement  the 
centaurs  touching  the  breasts  of  their  victims  are  on 
one  side,  and  those  whose  heads  are  kept  at  a  distance 
on  the  other  side.  Such  a  poor  distribution  is  surely 
not  to  be  expected  of  a  sculptor  who  took  obvious 
pains  to  introduce  variety  in  the  balance  of  his  figures. 

The  heads  of  the  centaurs  are  full  of  bestiality, 
reminding  one  not  improperly  of  the  Marsyas  of  Myron. 


200 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


He,  however,  is  a  decidedly  more  refined  beast.  Their 
faces  are  full  of  lustful  expressions,  which  it  is  important 
to  notice,  because  all  the  other  faces,  with  one  excep- 
tion, are  expressionless.  A  beast,  from  the  Greek  point 
of  view,  might  lose  his  self-control;  the  noblest  man, 
never;  for  he  could  not  be  conceived  with  the  beauty 
of  his  quiet  features  marred  by  passion  (cf.  Peirithoos, 
page  1 88).  It  is  wrong,  therefore,  to  draw  too  definite 
conclusions  from  the  absence  of  expression  on  the 
finest  of  the  Olympia  faces  as  to  the  skill  of  the  artist. 
Changes,  nevertheless,  have  taken  place  since  the 
Aiginetan  figures  were  carved.  There  one  feels  the 
echo  of  the  old  limitations  in  the  curve  of  the  mouth 
and  in  the  lifeless  eyes;  here  one  sees,  in  spite  of  all 
inaccuracy,  an  independent  rendering  of  much  freer 
and  clearer  conceptions  of  the  head.  The  features  in 
no  case  are  individual,  and  yet  the  figures  appeal  to 
one  with  the  force  of  individuality.  This  is  due  to 
their  action;  they  do  not  stand  or  move  as  any  one 
must  do  under  similar  circumstances,  but  as  their  own 
particular  feelings  dictate. 

The  Olympia  sculptors,  therefore,  had  successfully 
started  on  the  road  of  character  suggestion  by  means 
of  poses  and  gestures.  They  had  advanced  to  the 
understanding  of  human  nature  and  dared  to  express 
it,  and  had  done  so  even  before  they  had  completely 
overcome  all  technical  difficulties  in  rendering  the 
human  form.    Neither  the  anatomist  nor  the  archae- 


AIGINA  AND  OLYMPIA  CONTRASTED  201 

ologist,  nor  for  that  matter  any  spectator,  will  have 
much  difficulty  in  pointing  out  such  defects  as  are  seen 
in  the  torso  of  Apollo,  or  the  missing  of  one  leg  on  the 
woman  nearest  Apollo's  right,  or  the  inaccurate  folds 
on  the  right  leg  of  the  other  girl  on  the  same  side,  or 
finally  the  unnaturally  long  arm  of  the  Lapith  youth 
which  the  centaur  is  biting  on  Apollo's  left.  All  these 
defects,  however,  disappear  before  the  joyous  spirit  of 
life  pervading  the  entire  composition.  If  it  was  right 
to  speak  of  the  Aiginetan  figures  as  pictures  of  men,  it 
is  surely  correct  to  call  the  creations  of  the  Olympia 
sculptors  real  living  men  and  women. 


CHAPTER  XVII 


REALIZATION  OF  THE  NOBLEST  IDEAS:  THE 
DIVINE  SIDE  OF  HUMAN  NATURE 

The  equivalent  of  the  word  "  soul "  was  first  used  in 
Greece  in  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  b.c.  by  the 
philosopher  Anaxagoras;  and  he,  too,  it  is  almost  cer- 
tain, was  far  from  thinking  of  the  soul  as  a  spirit  con- 
trolling the  human  body  and  its  activities. 

Harmony  and  unity  had  been  the  watchwords  of 
the  two  great  philosophical  schools  of  Asia  Minor  and 
lower  Italy  respectively.  In  striving  for  the  realization 
of  these  ideals  men  had  overlooked  the  existing  duality 
of  human  beings.  People  had  appeared  to  be  either 
heavenly  born,  or  by  fate  bad;  Greeks,  or  beasts  like 
the  centaurs.  If  the  sculptors  ever  had  noticed  the 
combination  of  the  divine  and  the  physical  in  men 
they  had  not  represented  it.  Indeed,  it  must  have  ap- 
peared to  them  unnatural  and  as  little  worthy  of  repre- 
sentation as  a  deformity,  because  both  alike  seemingly 
destroyed  the  harmonious  unity  of  the  composition. 

The  existence  of  this  duality,  however,  is  a  fact.  The 
sculptor  cannot  entirely  disregard  it,  even  if  he  does  not 
understand  it,  provided  he  is  skillful  enough  to  have 
attained  to  freedom  of  execution.    This  was  the  case  in 


Lemnian  Athena  (Bologna) 
From  Furtwangler,  Meisterwerke,  PI.  Ill 


THE  DIVINE  SIDE  OF  HUMAN  NATURE 


Greece  by  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century.  The  artists, 
therefore,  found  themselves  confronted  with  the  problem 
of  choosing  between  the  divine  and  the  physical  side  of 
human  nature;  for  where  the  legitimate  coexistence 
of  both  sides  was  denied,  or  at  least  not  appreciated, 
either  the  one  or  the  other  had  to  appear  as  the  control- 
ling motive.  The  selection  of  the  particular  side  was, 
however,  an  unconscious  process  of  the  mind,  and  in 
result  very  different  from  much  later  creations,  when 
artists  willfully  endeavored  to  suppress  either  the  spirit- 
ual or  the  physical  aspect  of  human  nature.  The  stat- 
ues of  Pheidias,  never  carved  from  models,  were  as  truly 
the  expressions  of  his  mental  conceptions  as  the  early 
"Apollos"  had  been  the  embodiments  of  the  memory 
images  of  his  predecessors. 

The  peculiar  conceptions  which  the  Greeks  had  of 
their  gods  assisted  such  a  mode  of  expression.  To 
understand  it  one  must  disregard  the  vulgar  fictions  of 
popular  mythology,  which  falsely  imputed  to  the  gods 
many  acts  of  violence  and  of  depravity,  since  frail  human 
nature  is  ever  ready  to  imagine  such  deeds  of  those 
who  lead  a  happier  and  less  restrained  existence.  The 
danger  of  such  stories  was  realized  by  the  best  men 
of  antiquity.  Plato,  in  his  endeavor  to  suppress  these 
legends,  was  even  willing  to  destroy  the  whole  of  the 
Homeric  poems  because  they  contained  some  of  them. 
The  real  Greek  gods  were  far  above  any  vile  imputa- 
tions; they  were  men,  noble  men  and  women,  without 


204 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


any  of  the  limitations  attaching  to  humanity.  They 
could  assume  any  shape  at  will,  but  in  the  perform- 
ance of  their  divine  duties  and  when  they  appeared  to 
mortals  they  assumed  the  human  form,  which  mortals 
could  understand.  It  must  never  be  believed  that  the 
Greeks  were  idolatrous  to  the  extent  of  seeing  actual 
divinity  in  their  statues.  Far  from  it !  The  Athena  in 
the  Parthenon  was  as  little  the  real  goddess  as  the 
modern  bronze  statue  of  Strassburg,  which  the  Pari- 
sians lovingly  deck  with  garlands  every  fourteenth  of 
July,  is  the  city  itself.  But  whereas  the  statue  in  Paris 
is  only  a  symbol  to  remind  the  people  more  forcefully 
of  their  lost  possession,  the  Athena  in  Athens  revealed 
the  very  shape  which  the  goddess  would  assume  if  she 
deigned  to  show  herself  to  mortal  eyes. 

To  create  the  statue  of  a  god,  therefore,  meant  not 
only  to  have  a  perfect  understanding  of  him  but  also 
to  conceive  of  a  human  body  which  could  worthily  con- 
tain his  personality  and  reveal  it  to  the  world.  It  is 
not  difficult  to  see  that  men  working  along  these  lines 
encountered  few  obstacles  in  perceiving  the  divine  side 
of  the  human  body,  and  preferred  to  represent  this  side 
at  all  times  rather  than  to  stoop  to  the  reproduction  of 
forms  which  could  never  hold  a  god. 

The  chief  sculptor  along  these  lines  was  Pheidias. 
He  was,  as  even  the  ancients  unanimously  agreed,  the 
greatest  of  all  artists.  No  other  sculptor,  however  high 
at  times  he  stood  in  popular  favor,  could  attain  to  the 


THE  OLYMPIAN  ZEUS  205 

grandeur  of  his  stature ;  and  on  no  other  did  they  feel 
less  qualified  to  pass  a  verdict  than  on  him.  No  word  of 
blame,  no  wish  that  this  or  that  might  be  different  in 
his  statues  ever  occurs  in  their  writings.  And  the  fact 
that  their  eulogies  also  are  few  is  readily  explained  by 
such  confessions  as  Pliny  made,  when  he  wanted  to 
prove  the  justice  of  the  universal  praise  of  Pheidias, 
and  declared  that  he  was  unable  to  discuss  any  of  his 
great  works, —  for  they  were  above  human  aspirations, 
they  were  divine, —  and  was  obliged  to  content  him- 
self with  the  description  of  a  minor  decoration  of  the 
Athena  Parthenos. 

None  of  the  most  important  statues  by  Pheidias  have 
come  down  to  the  present  day.  They  were  of  gold  and 
ivory  and  colossal  in  size.  The  head  of  his  Olympian 
Zeus  is  traced  on  a  coin  of  Elis,  and  the  type  of  the 
Athena  Parthenos,  once  almost  forty  feet  in  height, 
is  preserved  in  two  statuettes,  of  which  the  largest 
measures  barely  three  and  a  half  feet,  and  a  few  more 
statues  of  varying  sizes  and  doubtful  authenticity.  In 
the  absence  of  any  actual  reproductions  of  these  two 
important  statues  we  fortunately  possess  the  record  of 
their  impressions  upon  some  art  critics  and  archaeolo- 
gists of  antiquity.  "The  measurements,"  says  Pausa- 
nias,  in  speaking  of  the  colossal  chryselephantine  Zeus 
in  Olympia,  "are  recorded,  but  I  will  not  praise  those 
who  made  them,  for  the  measurements  which  they  give 
fall  far  short  of  the  impression  which  the  statue  makes 


206 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


upon  the  spectator."  Quintilian,  a  Roman  writer  of  the 
first  century,  even  beheved  that  this  statue  kept  add- 
ing new  strength  to  the  religion  which,  in  his  time,  was 
beginning  to  weaken  before  the  wave  of  learned  skep- 
ticism. And  Dio  Chrysostom,  after  saying  that  "our 
Zeus  is  peaceful  and  mild  in  every  way,  as  it  were  the 
guardian  of  Hellas  when  she  is  of  one  mind,  and  not 
distraught  with  faction,"  adds  his  own  confession,  that 
the  man  who  has  once  seen  the  statue  cannot  hence- 
forth form  another  impression  of  the  god,  or  think  of  him 
in  any  other  way ;  and  concludes  with  these  memorable 
words :  "  If  there  is  a  man  heavy  laden  and  full  of  sorrow 
in  his  soul,  who  has  suffered  many  evils  and  experienced 
much  woe  in  life,  so  that  sweet  sleep  does  no  longer  visit 
him,  I  believe,  if  he  were  to  stand  before  the  statue,  he 
would  forget  his  sorrows,  one  and  all,  and  would  recover." 

Such  and  similar  expressions  of  admiration  by  the 
ancients  give  one  a  better  idea  of  the  importance  of 
Pheidias  than  is  derived  from  a  minute  study  of  the 
small  copies  which  have  lost  all  the  grandeur  of  the 
original,  and  bear,  as  Mr.  Gardner  puts  it,  about  "  the 
same  relation  to  Pheidias'  statue  as  the  coarsest  Ger- 
man oleograph  after  the  Sistine  Madonna  bears  to  the 
picture  which  it  affects  to  reproduce."  The  value  of 
these  literary  statements  is  by  no  means  lessened  by 
the  fact  that  all  of  them  were  written  centuries  after 
Pheidias  lived,  and  at  a  time  when  Greek  art  had  run 
its  course  and  was  counted  among  the  relics  of  the 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  PHEIDIAS  207 

past.  If  men  of  later  days,  who  were  accustomed  to 
view  the  very  best  that  human  skill  had  created,  could 
appreciate  the  statues  of  Pheidias  and  could  read  in 
them  thoughts  to  satisfy  their  own  religious  needs,  this 
is  the  best  proof  of  the  singularly  pure  conceptions 
which  the  Greek  artist  had  embodied. 

A  genius  like  his,  working  so  soon  after  the  spirit  of 
freedom  had  laid  hold  of  his  race,  and  able  not  only 
to  conceive  but  also  to  express  thoughts  that  were  to 
govern  the  religious  world  for  more  than  half  a  millen- 
nium, could  not  help  leaving  its  impress  alike  on  con- 
temporaneous and  on  subsequent  art.  Even  without 
Pheidias,  Greek  sculpture  might  eventually  have  devel- 
oped as  it  did,  but  it  would  surely  have  taken  more  time 
to  reach  its  heights. 

The  actual  dates  both  of  the  birth  and  of  the  death  of 
Pheidias  are  unknown.  He  was  born  in  Athens  prob- 
ably about  500  B.C.,  and  completed  his  studies  outside 
his  native  country  with  Ageladas  of  Argos,  who  in 
antiquity  had  the  proud  reputation  of  having  taught 
not  only  him  but  also  Myron  and  Polykleitos.  Soon 
after  the  Persian  wars  he  received  the  commission  from 
Athens  for  a  large  bronze  group  of  national  heroes  with 
Miltiades  as  the  central  figure.  None  of  the  other 
works  of  Pheidias  can  be  accurately  dated  except  his 
Athena  Parthenos,  which  was  dedicated  in  438  b.c. 
Pheidias  died  before  Perikles  (bust,  page  2),  his  life- 
long friend  and  admirer,  who  succumbed  to  the  plague 


208 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


in  429.  Perikles  made  him  general  supervisor  over  all 
the  buildings  that  he  erected  during  the  many  years  of 
his  supremacy  in  Athens.  The  last  years  of  the  life 
of  Perikles  were  embittered  by  the  ingratitude  of  the 
Athenians  and  their  slanderous  attacks  on  him  and 
on  his  friends.  Pheidias  had  to  stand  his  share  of  it. 
He  was  accused  of  having  embezzled  gold  intrusted  to 
him  for  the  making  of  the  Athena  Parthenos.  Out  of 
this  accusation,  the  justice  of  which  some  later  writers 
did  not  deny,  a  number  of  stories  grew,  many  of  which 
have  come  down  to  the  present  day. 

Most  modern  writers  —  one  blushes  to  confess  it  — 
incline  to  believe  in  the  guilt  of  Pheidias.  It  is,  how- 
ever, impossible  to  believe  that  Pheidias  correctly  under- 
stood the  gods,  and  at  the  same  time  was  willing  to 
steal  the  sacred  material  given  to  him  for  the  making 
of  their  statues.  Considering  the  most  recent  contri- 
butions to  this  subject,  the  weight  of  the  argument 
may  now  be  said  to  be  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of 
the  innocence  of  Pheidias. 

Of  the  many  attempts  to  identify  with  existing 
statues  some  of  the  twenty-one  works  with  which  the 
ancients  credited  Pheidias  only  one  probably  has  been 
successful.  This  refers  to  the  brilliant  discovery  of  Pro- 
fessor Furtwangler,  who  has  recognized  the  type  of  the 
Lemnian  Athena  in  a  beautiful  head  in  Bologna  (page 
202)  and  in  two  statues  in  Dresden.  This  discovery  was 
the  more  difficult  to  make  since  the  appearance  of  the 


THE  LEMNIAN  ATHENA  209 

statue  was  completely  changed  by  wrong  restorations. 
By  a  combination  of  the  three  remains  Professor  Furt- 
wangler  has  created  a  new  figure  in  plaster,  PI.  XVII, 
Fig.  I,  which  is  probably  a  fair  reproduction  of  the 
statue  of  Pheidias.  The  original  was  dedicated  on  the 
Akropolis  of  Athens  by  Athenian  colonists  who  had 
received  free  land  in  Lemnos,  at  a  date  which  is  not 
definitely  known. 

The  dignity  of  the  statue  is  self-evident  It  is  a 
somewhat  austere  though  kind  conception  of  the  patron 
goddess  of  Athens,  and  appeals  to  the  imagination  even 
more  than  to  the  senses.  The  generous  bend  of  the 
magnificent  head,  together  with  the  apparently  volun- 
tary rigidity  of  pose,  conveys  an  excellent  idea  of  the 
character  of  the  virgin  warrior  who  at  all  times  had  the 
welfare  of  her  city  at  heart.  That  the  original  was  of 
bronze  is  clearly  seen  not  only  from  the  general  design 
of  the  figure  but  also  from  the  execution  of  its  details. 
The  short  garment,  showing  the  feet,  is  characteristic 
of  the  transitional  period  and  the  years  immediately 
following  it;  it  occurs  on  several  metopes  from  Olym- 
pia,  but  has  disappeared  in  the  copies  of  the  Athena 
Parthenos.  Professor  Furtwangler  has  based  on  it  his 
theory  of  the  date  of  the  statue,  believing  it  to  belong 
to  the  early  period  of  the  artist's  activity. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  a  mistake  to  make  this  statue 
the  starting  point  of  an  appreciation  of  Pheidias ;  one 
may,  however,  be  permitted  to  take  it  into  consideration. 


I 


2IO  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

for  if  not  actually  made  by  him,  it  was  doubtless  created 
under  those  influences  which  by  common  consent  are 
held  to  have  emanated  from  him.  They  are  perfection 
of  transmitted  forms,  and  expression  of  a  profound  and 
divinely  noble  character.  Both  these  qualities  are  found 
to  such  a  high  degree  in  this  statue  that  they  entitle 
it  to  the  attention  which  Professor  Furtwangler's  prob- 
ably correct  identification  has  given  it. 

The  discovery  of  this  statue  has  not  taught  us  any- 
thing new  concerning  the  style  of  Pheidias,  but  it  has 
supplied  us  with  one  of  the  best  illustrations  of  his  art, 
the  essence  of  which  was  the  appreciation  of  man's 
noblest  side.  Finer  bodies  have  been  carved  than  that 
of  the  Lemnian  Athena,  and  more  delicate  draperies 
have  been  designed  than  she  wears.  But  rarely,  if  ever, 
has  a  single  body  conveyed  better  than  hers  the  con- 
viction of  the  artist  that  the  spark  of  the  divine  does 
live  in  men  and  that  it  possesses  the  power  to  trans- 
form what  is  mortal  into  the  image  of  God. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


THE  PARTHENON 

1.  Metopes  and  Frieze 

That  Pheidias,  as  is  popularly  believed,  had  an  inti- 
mate connection  with  the  Parthenon  cannot  be  proved. 
Ikteinos  and  Kallikrates  were  the  architects  of  the 
building,  and  many  sculptors  were  engaged  to  carve 
in  stone  its  friezes  and  pedimental  figures.  When 
Perikles  decided  upon  the  building  of  this  the  largest 
of  all  the  Athenian  temples,  he  did  so,  at  least  in 
part,  in  order  to  provide  occupation  for  large  classes 
of  citizens  whom  he  found  it  desirable  to  keep  well 
occupied.  Under  these  conditions  it  was  impossible 
to  engage  the  best  sculptors  only,  and  this  is  shown 
by  the  differences  in  workmanship,  which  are  at  times 
pronounced.  Pheidias,  who,  we  are  told,  had  general 
charge  of  all  the  art  activities  during  the  ascendency 
of  Perikles,  may  naturally  have  paid  special  attention 
to  the  decoration  of  the  Parthenon;  but  this  is  merely 
an  assumption,  not  even  based  on  transmitted  evidence. 
Pheidias  himself,  while  the  temple  was  being  built, 
was  actively  engaged  in  the  making  of  his  colossal 
gold  and  ivory  statue  of  Athena,  and  doubtless  had 
little  time  for  anything  else.   The  unity  of  conception, 

211 


212 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


however,  which  is  noticed  in  the  frieze,  and  the  per- 
fection especially  of  the  figures  of  the  east  pediment, 
suggest  that  the  mind  of  one  great  man  was  responsible 
for  their  design.  This  is  the  reason  why,  in  the  absence 
of  artists  to  equal  Pheidias,  one  turns  to  him ;  and  this 
one  does  the  more  readily  since  it  is  known  (though 
of  a  somewhat  later  time)  that  one  sculptor  made  the 
designs  for  a  pediment,  while  others  were  engaged  to 
execute  them.  This  was  probably  the  case  with  the 
Parthenon.  The  two  friezes  alone  contain  about  thirty- 
three  hundred  and  thirty-two  square  feet  of  sculpture, 
which  proves  that  no  one  man  could  possibly  have 
carved  all  of  them  in  the  few  years  allotted  to  the  task. 

The  temple  was  of  the  Doric  order.  Its  outside  frieze, 
therefore,  was  broken  up  into  metopes  and  triglyphs  (see 
PI.  XII,  Fig.  i).  The  triglyphs  wei  3  projecting  blocks 
with  two  grooves  in  the  center  and  two  half  grooves  at 
the  ends,  which  gave  them  the  name  three-grooved, — that 
is,  triglyphs.  The  metopes  were  the  squares  between  the 
triglyphs.  On  the  Parthenon  they  were  decorated  with 
figures  in  high  relief ;  on  other  temples  they  were  some- 
times filled  with  paintings  or  left  entirely  undecorated. 
This  probably  was  the  case  on  the  Zeus  temple  in 
Olympia,  for  the  carved  square  slabs  from  that  temple 
which  are  known  as  metopes  belonged  to  the  inside  of 
the  colonnade,  where  they  were  placed  above  the  en- 
trance doors.  In  the  Parthenon  the  interior  of  the  col- 
onnade was  decorated  in  a  different  way,  for  it  contained 


THE  PARTHENON  METOPES  213 

a  continuous  frieze,  which  is  an  ornament  unknown  to 
strictly  Doric  temples.  It  was  copied  from  Ionic  build- 
ings, and  is  known  as  the  Ionic  frieze.  To  distinguish 
the  two  groups  of  sculpture  on  the  Parthenon  briefly, 
the  outer  figures  of  the  Doric  frieze  are  called  metopes, 
and  the  continuous  inner  frieze  the  frieze. 

The  Metopes 

When  the  Parthenon  (see  PI.  XII,  Fig.  2)  was  de- 
stroyed in  1687  the  metopes  suffered  most,  and  of 
ninety-two  which  originally  encircled  the  building  only 
about  eighteen  of  the  south  side  are  well  enough  pre- 
served to  deserve  attention.  The  others  are  so  com- 
pletely destroyed  that  not  even  the  subjects  which  they 
represented  can  be  distinguished  with  certainty.  The 
east  side  may  have  contained  the  struggle  between  the 
gods  and  giants,  the  west  side  the  battle  with  the  Ama- 
zons, the  north  side  the  scene  from  the  Trojan  war; 
while  the  majority  of  the  metopes  on  the  south  treated 
the  subject  which  was  represented  on  one  of  the  Olym- 
pia  pediments, — the  struggle  between  the  centaurs  and 
the  Lapiths. 

The  workmanship  on  the  preserved  metopes  is  un- 
even. Some  contain  indications  that  their  sculptors 
have  accepted  the  new  order  of  things,  and  belong  to 
the  age  of  Pheidias;  others  reveal  practices  in  keeping 
with  the  older  school.  Such  a  survival  of  old  tradi- 
tions is  not  at  all  astonishing.    Indeed,  it  would  have 


214 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


been  a  marvel  if  the  entire  art  of  sculpture  had  com- 
pletely changed  in  one  short  generation.  The  thing  of 
importance  is  that  none  of  the  adherents  of  the  older 
mode  of  carving  left  any  pupils  for  the  next  genera- 
tion ;  for  the  people  then  builded  entirely  upon  the  new 
achievements  of  Pheidias  and  his  school,  and  paid  no 
attention  to  the  conservatists. 

One  of  the  best  metopes,  PI.  XXI,  Fig.  i,  shows  a 
Lapith  victorious  over  a  centaur.  He  has  wounded  him 
in  the  small  of  the  back,  as  the  gesture  of  the  beast  indi- 
cates, and  running  up  behind  him,  wheels  about  to  fetch 
a  blow.  The  conception  of  the  figures  is  full  of  life, 
but  retarded  by  the  introduction  of  the  drapery.  If  one 
imagines  the  garment  away,  the  youth  gains  in  power 
and  in  swiftness.  Before  one's  very  eyes  he  seems  to 
turn,  ready  to  deal  his  blow.  Why  should  the  sculp- 
tor have  been  willing  to  spoil  the  vigor  of  his  composi- 
tion by  hanging  a  piece  of  drapery  over  the  arms  of  the 
Lapith  ?  Why  should  he  condemn  him  to  eternal  inac- 
tivity? The  answer  to  these  questions  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  it  was  almost  impossible  to  fill  the  entire  space 
of  a  metope  with  two  figures  without  leaving  either  in 
the  corners  or  in  the  center  an  empty  space  of  noticeable 
dimensions.  Empty  spaces,  however,  were,  especially  in 
the  fifth  century,  a  horror  to  the  Greeks.  This  sculptor, 
therefore,  rather  than  offend  the  eye  by  such  an  empty 
space,  weakened  the  original  design.  The  design  may 
be  by  Pheidias,  the  drapery  this  man's  own  addition. 


REPRESENTATION  OF  THE  DEAD  215 

On  the  next  metope,  PL  XXI,  Fig.  2,  the  tables  are 
turned  with  a  vengeance.  The  Lapith  is  dying;  and 
while  his  head  is  sinking  low,  the  centaur  dances 
above  him  in  exultant  glee.  The  right  leg  of  the  cen- 
taur —  now  broken  —  is  locked  with  the  limb  of  his  foe. 
Swinging  the  boy's  leg  up  and  down,  the  prancing  beast 
draws  fresh  hilarity  from  every  touch.  The  panther  skin 
catches  the  frenzy,  and  behind  the  centaur's  back  its 
lifeless  tail  and  paw  swing  in  the  wind  in  wildest  excite- 
ment. Even  its  grimace  is  cruelly  staring  down  on  the 
dying  boy.  The  lost  head  of  the  centaur  possibly  showed 
some  of  the  wanton  bestiality  which  is  ^till  reflected  in 
his  whisking  tail. 

The  dying  boy  is  less  well  represented  because,  in 
the  first  place,  the  representation  of  the  dead  offered 
problems  which  were  not  fully  solved  for  several  genera- 
tions. It  is  not  enough  to  carve  a  lifeless  form;  the  artist 
must  show  that  it  is  a  form  created  to  live,  that  is,  a  living 
body  with  life  now  suddenly  departed.  Another  reason 
was  that  the  high  position  of  the  metope,  and  the  sharp 
angle  at  which  it  was  seen,  offered  the  same  difficulties 
that  had  induced  the  Aigina  sculptors  to  show  their 
warriors  as  dying  rather  than  as  dead.  A  body  lying 
flat  on  its  back  at  some  height  is  hardly  seen,  not  to 
speak  of  the  fact  that  its  thickness,  if  correctly  carved, 
appears  disproportionately  thin,  owing  to  the  peculiarity 
of  human  vision.  Considerations  of  this  kind  explain 
the  readiness  of  subsequent  sculptors  to  deviate  from 


2l6 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  even  level  upon  which  the  action  of  their  figures 
on  temple  sculptures  ought  to  take  place. 

The  artist  of  this  metope  has  successfully  filled  one 
of  the  empty  spaces  of  his  slab  with  the  panther  skin. 
This  skin,  a  technical  necessity  in  the  first  place,  has 
eventually  become  such  an  integral  part  of  the  compo- 
sition that  without  it  the  metope  would  lose  in  vital 
interest.  This  shows  mastery  over  the  limitations  of 
space  and  material.  The  artist,  no  longer  their  slave, 
has  begun  to  be  their  master!  Herein  perhaps  lies 
one  of  the  foremost  characteristics  of  the  best  of  Greek 
art,  —  that  the  artists  voluntarily  submit  to  restrictions, 
but  turn  them  into  successes.  In  early  Greek  sculp- 
ture the  submission  was  less  voluntary  and  the  skill  too 
slight  to  overcome  difiiculties.  In  later  times  the  skill 
was  so  great  and  the  submission  so  well  disguised  that 
it  almost  appeared  to  be  undesigned  and  the  unham- 
pered expression  of  a  first  conception.  Throughout, 
however,  the  ultimate  success  was  due  to  the  delight 
which  the  artists  took  in  proving  themselves  masters 
over  all  those  outside  considerations  which  under  differ- 
ent conditions  would  have  been  powerful  checks  upon 
the  free  exercise  of  their  art. 

On  another  Parthenon  metope,  PI.  X,  Fig.  3,  the 
sculptor  has  shown  that  he  has  not  yet  attained  free- 
dom in  his  profession.  His  subject  is  a  centaur  canter- 
ing off  with  a  Lapith  woman.  The  artist  realized  that 
the  representation  of  the  similar  motive  in  Olympia, 


UNSOLVED  PROBLEMS  217 

PL  X,  Fig.  2,  had  not  been  altogether  successful ;  for  as 
long  as  the  woman  had  her  feet  firmly  planted  on  the 
ground,  the  progress  of  the  centaur  had  to  be  slow. 
In  the  metope,  therefore,  the  beast  has  snatched  the 
woman  high  up  in  the  air;  and  this,  of  course,  meant 
that  her  head  projected  above  his.  The  highest  point 
at  which  her  head  could  be  represented  was  given  by 
the  upper  edge  of  the  block.  But  this  was  the  level 
on  which  generally  the  centaur  heads  were  carved.  It 
was  therefore  necessary  to  compress  the  upper  part  of 
his  body  in  order  to  carry  out  the  idea  of  the  composi- 
tion. The  general  proportions  of  the  centaur,  however, 
were  given  by  the  length  of  his  horse's  body,  which, 
considering  the  architecturally  fixed  width  of  the  metope, 
could  not  be  lessened  for  fear  of  leaving  too  great  a 
space  unfilled  at  either  side.  The  result  was  a  deformed 
and  almost  hunchbacked  centaur,  doing  violence  to  the 
general  conception  of  one  of  his  race.  The  metope 
is,  moreover,  decidedly  unpleasant  to  look  at;  nor  are 
empty  spaces  avoided.  The  compression  of  this  figure 
and  the  necessarily  slight  drapery  of  the  woman,  flut- 
tering behind  his  back,  leave  a  large  part  in  the  left- 
hand  upper  corner  of  the  slab  unfilled.  Altogether  this 
metope  is  perhaps  the  least  satisfactory  of  all  that  are 
preserved,  and  that  in  spite  of  the  soundness  of  the 
considerations  which  led  to  its  first  design.  The  fact 
is,  the  sculptor  realized  at  every  turn  the  obstacles  that 
arose,  without  being  able  to  cope  with  all. 


2l8 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Almost  every  one  of  the  metope  figures  of  the  Par- 
thenon is  an  independent  and  new  creation,  at  least  in 
so  far  as  the  scarcity  of  extant  contemporaneous  sculp- 
ture permits  one  to  judge.  In  one  slab,  however,  the 
youth  bears  considerable  resemblance  to  the  Harmodios 
of  the  Tyrannicide  group.  It  is  therefore  not  at  all 
unlikely  that  some  of  the  other  figures  also  may  have 
preserved  the  types  of  now  lost  statues. 

The  Frieze 

The  Ionic  frieze  encircling  the  temple  walls  on  the 
inside  of  the  colonnade  measured  originally  almost  five 
hundred  and  twenty-three  feet,  of  which  four  hundred 
and  ten  feet  have  survived  the  explosion;  but  of  these 
only  about  three  hundred  feet  are  well  enough  preserved 
to  repay  a  detailed  study.  The  frieze  was  continuous ;  it 
was  nearly  forty  feet  above  the  ground,  and  seen  under 
dim  light.  The  impression,  therefore,  of  disjointed  slabs 
in  well-lighted  galleries  to-day  is  different  from,  and 
probably  far  inferior  to,  the  impression  intended  by  the 
artists.  Of  no  other  Greek  work  can  it  be  said  with 
equal  truth  that  to  form  even  an  approximate  idea  of  its 
lost  magnificence  is  impossible.  But  what  the  frieze  has 
lost  in  artistic  value  by  having  been  brought  close  to  the 
eye  of  the  spectator,  it  has  gained  in  another  direction ; 
for  to-day  one  can  follow  on  it,  as  never  before,  the  de- 
vices of  the  artists  which  enabled  them  to  gain  complete 
mastery  over  difficulties  of  technique  and  design. 


THE  PARTHENON  FRIEZE 


219 


It  is  not  necessary  to  mention  all  the  devices,  for 
with  hardly  an  exception  they  go  to  show  that  the 
artists  were  willing  to  accept  some  well-defined  laws  of 
their  art  as  binding  upon  them,  but  never  as  offering 
unsurmountable  obstacles. 

The  subject  of  the  frieze  was  the  procession  of  the 
Panathenaic  festival.  It  was  as  little  an  accurate  ren- 
dering of  the  gorgeous  pageant  as  contemporaneous 
sculpture  was  a  copy  from  models;  both  alike  were 
the  expressions  of  the  artists'  conceptions.  The  chief 
integral  parts  of  the  procession  —  the  cavalcade  and 
the  chariots,  the  sacrificial  implements  and  the  victims, 
the  men  and  women  on  foot,  and  the  assembly  of  magis- 
trates on  the  Akropolis  —  are  distinguished,  but  they 
are  not  brought  out  with  the  accuracy  expected  of  the 
modern  portrayer  of  historic  events.  No  one  who  walks 
along  the  Parthenon  frieze  can  help  feeling  the  spirit 
of  religious  enthusiasm  and  national  pride  which  was 
the  quintessence  of  the  Panathenaic  festival.  But  if  a 
man  has  familiarized  himself,  from  literature,  with  the 
exact  procedure  followed  on  these  occasions,  and  is 
looking  for  any  particular  moment  to  be  represented  in 
the  frieze,  he  will  be  disappointed. 

After  having  decided  upon  the  subject  and  its  gen- 
eral mode  of  representation,  the  artists  had  to  settle  the 
question  of  how  to  arrange  it  about  the  building.  Begin- 
ning at  the  southwest  corner  on  the  west  side,  PL  XVI, 
Fig.  4,  which  was  the  nearest  to  the  Propylaia,  the 


220 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


only  gate  of  the  Akropolis,  the  procession  continued 
from  right  to  left  along  the  north  to  the  east,  where 
before  the  quiet  company  of  gods  it  came  to  a  stand- 
still. A  similar  procession  was  seen  approaching  the 
gods  from  the  other  side,  and  if  one  followed  it  back 
around  the  corner  to  the  south  wall  it  too  was  seen  to 
begin  on  the  southwest  corner.  It  may  be  questioned 
whether  such  an  arrangement  is  altogether  satisfactory, 
for  there  was  a  definite  break  in  the  composition  at  the 
corner  where  the  procession  started  in  opposite  direc- 
tions. The  artists,  however,  carved  the  figures  here 
in  such  a  fashion  that  the  break  became  less  notice- 
able. Few  people,  moreover,  approaching,  as  was  cus- 
tomary, from  the  west,  would  be  apt  to  go  round  to  the 
southwest  and  along  it  to  the  entrance  door,  because 
the  regular  way  led  along  the  north.  No  one,  therefore, 
under  ordinary  conditions  would  ever  actually  see  the 
procession  start  in  opposite  directions. 

The  meeting  of  the  two  processions  on  the  east  frieze 
(see  page  60)  was  even  more  skillfully  managed.  The 
very  extensive  group  of  the  gods  in  the  center  was 
divided  in  two  by  five  figures,  probably  the  priest  and 
priestess  and  three  attendants,  immediately  over  the 
middle  of  the  entrance  door,  while  six  or  more  magis- 
trates were  seen  on  either  side  of  the  gods.  They  stood 
about  in  a  haphazard  way,  passing  in  conversation  the 
time  of  waiting.  Those  nearest  the  corner  were  discern- 
ing the  maidens  who  headed  the  procession,  and  gave 


ARRANGEMENT  OF  FRIEZE 


221 


the  word  to  the  others,  "  They  are  coming ! "  This 
is  the  interest  of  the  moment,  by  reason  of  which  one 
utterly  forgets  to  notice  whence  they  are  coming,  espe- 
cially since  all  are  heading  for  the  entrance  of  the 
Parthenon. 

It  would  have  been  possible,  of  course,  to  arrange  the 
composition  differently,  —  to  begin,  for  instance,  at  one 
corner  and  carry  the  procession  around  the  four  sides  of 
the  temple,  or  to  begin  in  the  center  of  one  side  and  divide 
the  composition  in  two  equal  halves;  but  if  one  takes 
the  pains  of  thinking  out  the  logical  difHculties  accru- 
ing from  such  arrangements,  one  soon  realizes  that  the 
Parthenon  sculptors  were  wise  in  their  selection. 

The  impression  which  one  carries  away  from  an  actual 
procession  is  harmonious,  as  of  one  complete  whole,  in 
spite  of  the  many  integral  parts  of  which  it  consists. 
There  were,  therefore,  no  breaks  permissible  in  the  frieze. 
The  rapidly  moving  cavalcade  was  to  follow  upon  the 
preliminary  preparations,  without  exhibiting  any  figures 
on  which  the  spectator  could  fasten  his  eyes  and  say, 
"  Here  they  begin  to  canter  rapidly " ;  and  the  slower 
chariots,  and  men  and  women  on  foot,  had  to  follow 
upon  the  galloping  horsemen  without  showing  a  defi- 
nite spot  which  could  be  said  to  mark  the  end  of  the 
rapid  movement  and  the  beginning  of  the  more  stately 
advance.  And  all  this  was  to  be  done  without  any  vio- 
lence to  the  proper  spirit  of  each  separate  part  of  the 
procession.    How  well  the  artists  solved  these  manifold 


222 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


problems  can  only  be  seen  when  one  views  the  frieze  in 
its  entirety,  but  even  the  study  of  separate  slabs  offers 
some  definite  hints. 

The  whole  west  side,  pages  60  and  2 1 8,  was  reserved 
for  what  may  be  called  "  preparations."  The  very  first 
figure  is  one  of  the  marshals.  Many  of  them  are  scat- 
tered along  the  lines,  arranging  the  men  and  urging 
them  forward,  or  restraining  their  too  rapid  progress. 
The  first  marshal  has  half  turned  toward  the  southern 
side,  where  the  procession  is  to  move  from  left  to  right. 
His  gestures  seem  to  beckon  to  men  unseen  to  come 
along  and  get  ready  with  the  rest  to  move  from  right 
to  left.  The  two  horses  near  him  already  hold  the  direc- 
tion of  this  half  of  the  procession,  but  a  youth  leisurely 
tying  his  sandal  strap  is  pointing  to  the  right.  He  has 
his  foot  on  the  stepping-stone  and  may  soon  mount  his 
horse.  In  thought,  therefore,  he  clearly  belongs  to  the 
direction  of  his  horse;  in  masses,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  points  just  as  distinctly  toward  the  movement  around 
the  corner  on  the  southern  frieze.  On  the  next  slab  a 
horse  is  running  away;  he  has  turned  and  is  cantering 
off,  when  he  is  caught  by  a  man.  Nothing  is  more 
natural  than  that  a  horse  should  break  away  from  the 
direction  followed  by  his  companions.  He  does  not 
therefore  break,  in  thought,  the  onward  movement  of 
this  side  of  the  frieze,  while  his  new  direction  contains 
one  last  hint  of  the  movement  on  the  other  side.  If 
nothing  was  left  of  the  west  frieze  except  these  three 


EASY  TRANSITIONS  IN  FRIEZE  223 

slabs,  it  would  be  difficult  to  determine,  at  the  first 
glance,  in  which  direction  the  procession  was  to  move, 
for  the  figures  on  them,  designed  as  connecting  links 
between  the  two  opposite  directions,  are  neutral  as 
regards  their  lines  and  masses.  Their  thoughts,  on  the 
other  hand,  leave,  upon  careful  inspection,  not  the 
least  doubt  of  the  direction  which  they  are  going  to 
follow.  When  one  has  come  in  one's  review  of  the 
frieze  to  the  runaway  horse,  one  has  sufficiently  entered 
upon  the  general  spirit  of  the  west  frieze  to  render  any 
more  references  to  the  south  side  unnecessary.  For 
safety's  sake,  however,  the  artists  introduced,  before 
turning  the  north  corner,  two  or  three  more  echoes  of 
the  opposite  direction. 

The  next  problem  was  how  to  double  up  the  horse- 
men gradually,  when  the  first  groups  had  been  single 
men  and  horses.  The  first  two  horses  are  standing 
one  in  front  of  the  other,  with  their  riders  near  by. 
Then  comes  the  runaway.  He  is  caught  by  his  owner, 
with  the  assistance  of  a  friend,  whose  own  horse  in  the 
meantime  canters  up  close  to  the  next  man.  In  front 
is  a  group  of  an  impatient  horse  and  a  talkative  owner, 
and  then  a  group  of  two  horses  mounted.  These  horses, 
however,  which  are  only  very  little  nearer  each  other 
than  those  on  the  earlier  slab,  show  no  intentional 
doubliTig  up,  following  quite  naturally  upon  the  lines 
and  masses  that  have  preceded.  The  possible  danger 
of  having  the  differences  in  thought  of  these  groups 


224 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


noticed  is  also  avoided  by  the  introduction  of  an  espe-, 
cially  interesting  slab  between  them,  where  a  restive 
horse  is  scratching  his  nose  on  his  fore  legs. 

What  the  Olympia  sculptor  had  for  the  first  time 
tried  on  the  west  pediment  is  here  carried  out  to  per- 
fection. The  lines  and  the  masses  make  their  united 
appeal  to  the  spectator,  whose  attention  is  quickly  car- 
ried to  new  parts,  owing  to  differences  of  thought 
expressed  in  seemingly  similar  groups.  With  such 
a  treatment  transitions  are  quickly  and  unnoticeably 
made ;  for  the  masses  are  generally  sufficiently  alike  to 
disguise  them.  When  necessary,  groups  are  interposed 
which,  without  being  in  the  least  extraneous  to  the  com- 
position, are  of  individual  and  immediate  interest.  There 
is  in  every  new  group  an  echo  of  one  that  has  preceded 
and  a  hidden  indication  of  one  that  is  to  follow. 

Making  use  of  the  double  appeal  of  a  group  upon  the 
eye  and  the  imagination,  it  was  not  difficult  to  increase 
or  to  decrease  the  rapidity  of  the  procession  without 
disclosing  the  devices  employed.  The  whole  of  the 
west  frieze  was  to  give  the  impression  of  preparation. 
Its  last  figure,  therefore,  like  its  first,  is  a  marshal.  But 
this  time  the  marshal  is  not  exciting  his  men  to  greater 
hurry,  but  is  placidly  awaiting  the  approach  of  two 
youths  who  are  cantering  up  to  him.  They  do  not  ride 
side  by  side,  but  the  one  behind  the  other ;  for  just  as 
cleverly  as  the  figures  are  doubled  up  in  the  beginning 
they  are  separated  toward  the  end.    A  second  runaway 


THE  NORTH  FRIEZE  225 

horse  is  then  introduced,  and  later,  after  another  group 
of  two,  a  leader  of  nobler  bearing  and  richer  accouter- 
ments,  who  would  naturally  ride  alone.  Then  follows 
a  boy,  dismounted,  and  finally,  after  two  more  riders,  — 
one  of  whom  has  fallen  behind  and  is  trying  to  catch 
up  with  his  companion,  —  an  entirely  different  group: 
a  youth  is  fixing  his  fillet,  while  one  of  the  marshals, 
who  is  holding  the  boy's  horse,  is  conversing  with  a 
little  slave. 

On  the  northern  frieze  the  cavalcade  is  formed  and 
cantering  off  at  great  speed.  But  the  first  figures, 
PI.  XX,  Fig.  2,  are  quiet  in  lines,  the  very  first  in  fact 
being  a  standing  boy  fastening  his  master's  belt.  In 
the  background  a  rider  is  seen,  and  in  front  a  dis- 
mounted horseman,  whose  figure  preserves  a  definite 
echo  of  the  lines  of  one  of  the  last  boys  on  the  west 
frieze.  Here  he  is  following  his  prancing  steed,  and 
by  his  gestures  urging  his  dilatory  companion  to  hurry 
along.  In  masses  the  first  two  figures  of  the  north 
frieze  are  as  quiet  as  the  first  two  of  the  west  frieze. 
In  thought,  suggested  by  the  waving  arm  of  the  youth 
in  front,  they  are  infinitely  more  closely  connected  with 
the  quicker  movement  of  the  north  frieze. 

The  cavalcade,  PI.  XX,  Fig.  i,  proceeds  in  rows  of 
at  first  four  and  then  six  deep.  The  seemingly  con- 
fused lines  of  the  many  horses'  legs  carry  out  the 
impression  of  great  rapidity.  Before  one  has  looked 
over  many  slabs  one  has  completely  entered  into  the 


226 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


joyful  spirit  of  celerity  pervading  the  Athenian  cavalry, 
the  pride  of  the  city.  To  continue  the  mixed-up  lines 
of  closely  packed  and  prancing  horses  very  long  would 
have  been  tedious  to  the  eye.  Occasionally,  therefore, 
there  is  a  let-up,  with  one  or  more  figures  singled  out 
from  the  rest.  At  such  places  of  comparatively  quiet 
lines  there  was  danger  of  having  a  lull  suggested  unless 
the  tension  was  kept  up  by  the  thought  expressed  in 
the  figures.  This  the  artists  have  done  with  astound- 
ing skill.  The  first  of  these  horsemen  riding  alone, 
PI.  XX,  Fig.  4,  is  checking  his  horse  to  fall  back  of  his 
companions;  he  leans  about  and  by  word  and  gesture 
seems  to  urge  those  behind  him  to  gallop  up  and  fill 
the  space  which  intervened  between  their  squad  and 
his.  The  single  rider,  therefore,  far  from  suggesting  a 
break  in  the  rapidity  of  the  procession,  adds  to  its  swift- 
ness; for  the  cavalcade,  however  fast  it  has  seemed  to 
be  cantering  thus  far,  will  have  to  go  even  faster  in 
order  to  catch  up  with  those  in  front.  The  impression 
of  velocity,  therefore,  left  with  the  spectators  is  not  all 
due  to  the  lines  which  they  have  already  seen,  but  in 
great  part  to  the  suggestive  gestures  of  this  one  horse- 
man. Thus  again  an  appeal  is  made  not  only  to  the 
eye  but  also  to  the  imagination. 

Another  single  figure,  PL  XX,  Fig.  3,  is  introduced 
when,  toward  the  end  of  the  cavalry  lines,  provision 
must  be  made  for  the  quieter  movements  of  the  char- 
iots.   Here  the  straight  and  quiet  lines  of  a  marshal 


THE  SOUTH  FRIEZE  227 

break  the  previous  confusion.  He  is  standing  fairly 
alone.  In  front  of  him  the  horses  are  less  crowded,  as 
if  curbed  to  wait  for  the  battalions  in  the  rear,  to  whom 
the  marshal  seems  to  be  beckoning.  The  thought  of 
speedy  onward  movement,  therefore,  does  not  receive  a 
setback  by  his  presence,  while  the  lines  of  his  body, 
by  their  stability,  make  ready  preparations  for  the  more 
restful  figures  to  come.  These  are  the  charioteers  in 
the  first  place,  and  in  front  of  them  the  old  men  and 
musicians,  the  youths  with  the  sacred  implements,  and 
then  the  heavily  draped  men  leading  the  animals  to 
the  sacrifice.  Their  draperies  and  their  measured  steps 
finally  lead  up  to  the  procession  of  maidens  which 
begins  at  the  corners  of  the  east  frieze. 

The  arrangement  of  the  south  frieze  is  very  much 
like  that  of  the  north  frieze,  except  that  the  musicians 
and  the  sheep  are  omitted  and  that  the  other  parts  of 
the  pageant  are  correspondingly  enlarged.  This  frieze 
is  not  nearly  so  well  preserved  as  the  other,  but  it 
contains  some  of  the  most  beautiful  creations  among 
the  cavalrymen  and  the  chariot  horses.  The  technique, 
however,  is  often  less  excellent,  as  was  the  case  with 
the  metopes  on  this  side. 

The  east  frieze,  page  60,  is  the  most  quiet  of  all. 
About  two  thirds  of  its  entire  extent  are  reserved  for 
the  seated  gods  in  the  center  and  the  group  of  priests 
between  them.  Of  the  remaining  third  a  considerable 
portion  is  given  to  the  magistrates  who  have  not  taken 


228 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


part  in  the  procession  but  have  assembled  on  the 
Akropolis  to  receive  it.  The  gradual  approach  of  the 
maidens  to  these  many  quiet  figures  is  splendidly  done. 
The  transitions  from  the  standing  to  the  walking  figures 
have  been  managed  by  interposing  others  who,  though 
restful  in  lines,  are  yet  suggestive  of  movement.  To 
the  right  of  the  gods  there  are  six  magistrates,  of  whom 
four  are  conversing  together,  PI.  XV,  Fig.  3,  and  two 
have  just  separated,  the  one  to  turn  to  the  coming 
procession,  the  other  to  call  the  attention  of  his  col- 
leagues to  the  approaching  maidens.  The  maidens 
themselves  are  greeted  by  another  man,  who  seems  to 
have  received  a  vessel  from  the  first  couple  of  girls, 
while  back  of  them  a  marshal  is  giving  his  final  instruc- 
tions to  two  more.  His  word  is  passed  along  the  line, 
and  in  order  to  repeat  it  one  of  the  girls  of  the  third 
couple  is  falling  back  to  speak  to  her  sisters  behind  her. 
This  marks  the  transition  from  the  maidens  who  walk 
by  two  and  two  to  those  who  walk  alone,  in  keeping 
with  the  single  men  around  the  corner  who  lead  the 
animals. 

The  two  ends  of  the  east  frieze  correspond  to  one 
another  closely,  but  they  exhibit  sufficient  variety  to 
guard  against  any  seeming  repetition  or  monotony. 
The  right-hand  side,  however,  is  by  all  odds  the  most 
interesting.  The  twelve  seated  gods,  whose  sameness 
of  position  might  have  been  an  easy  excuse  for  identity 
of  conception,  show  such  remarkable  individuality  that 


MARVELOUS  SUCCESS 


229 


only  the  present  slight  knowledge  of  their  characters 
renders  it  impossible  to  call  them  by  name  in  every 
instance.  Zeus,  page  212,  the  father  and  king  of  the 
gods,  is  readily  recognized  by  his  royal  bearing,  espe- 
cially if  he  is  compared  with  the  others  who  are  sit- 
ting on  simpler  seats.  Of  these  chairs,  or  thrones,  none 
are  carved  with  the  delicacy  and  the  care  which  char- 
acterize the  pieces  of  furniture  on  the  "Harpy"  tomb, 
PI.  VI,  Figs.  I  and  2,  where  the  accessories  received 
fully  as  much  attention  as  the  figures  themselves.  On 
the  Parthenon  this  is  different,  only  those  accessories 
being  represented  that  are  absolutely  necessary. 

More  than  three  hundred  and  fifty  human  figures  are 
represented  on  the  Parthenon  frieze.  No  two  are  alike, 
and  that  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  many  are  seen  in 
practically  identical  positions.  Of  about  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  horses  of  the  cavalry  every  single  one 
is  .different  from  every  other.  There  are  many  transi- 
tions from  slow  to  rapid  movement  and  vice  versa, 
but  there  is  not  one  place  upon  which  one  can  lay 
one's  finger  and  say,  "  Here  is  a  break."  Despite  its 
numberless  variety,  therefore,  the  frieze  leaves  with  the 
beholder  the  impression  of  one  complete  and  harmoni- 
ous whole. 

For  almost  a  century  people  have  admired  the  Par- 
thenon frieze  without  considering  the  problems  which 
the  artist  had  to  solve.  The  solutions,  however,  are  so 
perfect  that  the  frieze  appears  the  more  wonderful  the 


230 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


more  one  realizes  them,  until  at  last  one  comes  to  look 
upon  it  as  something  marvelous.  In  antiquity  sculp- 
tured decorations  of  temples  did  not  rank  among  the 
great  masterpieces.  The  masterpieces  themselves  are 
now  lost,  or  are  preserved  in  a  fragmentary  condition, 
many  of  them  only  in  copies.  From  such  secondary  crea- 
tions, however,  as  the  Parthenon  frieze,  it  is  possible  to 
draw  conclusions  as  to  the  lost  works  of  art,  and  to 
learn  how  to  appreciate  them.  Such  appreciation  is  by 
no  means  impaired  by  the  few  instances  of  failure  on 
the  frieze,  as  when  a  horseman  without  a  horse  had 
to  be  introduced  on  the  west  frieze  to  fill  a  gap ;  or,  for 
the  same  reason,  the  marshal  in  front  of  the  fourth 
chariot  on  the  northern  frieze,  PI.  XVI,  Fig.  3,  had  to 
be  carved  of  unnaturally  large  dimensions.  These  in- 
stances of  comparative  failure  in  the  selection  of  the 
proper  means  to  conquer  the  difficulties  of  space  are 
very  rare,  and  always  treated  with  such  delicacy  that 
they  pass  unnoticed  in  a  general  survey  of  the  entire 
composition. 

The  blocks  of  the  frieze  which  form  integral  parts 
of  the  architectural  structure  of  the  Parthenon  must 
have  been  done  when  the  building  was  dedicated  in 
438  B.C.  The  first  definite  plans  for  the  erection  of  the 
Parthenon  were  made  in  454.  Owing  to  the  time  it 
must  have  taken  to  carve  the  frieze,  its  design  doubtless 
dates  from  the  earlier  year.  And  that  was  hardly  thirty 
years  after  the  Persian  wars ! 


CHAPTER  XIX 


THE  PARTHENON 

II.  The  Pediments 

The  east  pediment  of  the  Parthenon  contained  large 
groups  of  figures,  which  by  their  actions  and  attitudes 
told  the  story  of  the  birth  of  the  goddess  Athena. 
^When  the  Christians  changed  the  temple  into  a  church, 
and  placed  the  new  altar  in  its  east  side,  they  built  there, 
according  to  their  custom,  a  rounded  apse.  To  do  this 
they  removed  the  central  portions  of  all  the  decorations ; 
but  so  careful  were  they  that  some  slabs  of  the  frieze 
were  preserved  in  the  interior  of  the  building,  and  have 
not  suffered  at  all.  This  establishes  a  presumption  in 
favor  of  equal  care  bestowed  on  the  central  pedimental 
figures.  All  of  them  have  disappeared,  but  it  is  not 
impossible  that  some  day  they  may  turn  up  again,  per- 
haps in  a  museum,  where  they  have  passed  unnoticed 
because  separated  and  therefore  less  readily  recognized. 
More  than  once  the  attempt  has  actually  been  made  to 
identify  one  or  the  other  Athena  statue  with  the  Parthe- 
non pediment,  but  never  yet  to  universal  satisfaction. 
This  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  not  certain  which 
moment  "  relating  to  the  birth  of  Athena,"  as  Pausanias 

puts  it,  the  artist  had  selected  for  representation. 

231 


232 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Athena,  according  to  the  myth,  had  sprung  fully 
armed  from  the  head  of  Zeus.  Both  she  and  her  father, 
therefore,  were  doubtless  among  the  prominent  figures 
of  the  pediment.  But  which  of  them  held  the  central 
place?  Zeus  in  similar  scenes  on  vase  paintings,  and 
also  on  a  marble  relief  now  in  Madrid,  which  may  have 
been  inspired  by  the  Parthenon,  is  seated.  Assuming 
that  the  same  was  the  case  on  the  Parthenon,  and  that 
Zeus  was  represented  on  his  throne  directly  under  the 
apex  of  the  roof,  where  the  pediment  is  the  highest,  then 
a  moment  slightly  subsequent  to  the  birth  itself  might 
have  been  represented,  when  Athena  had  jumped  from 
her  father's  head  and  was  advancing  either  to  his  right 
or  his  left.  This  arrangement,  however,  by  adding 
special  weight  to  the  side  where  the  goddess  was  repre- 
sented, would  have  spoiled  the  harmonious  balance  of 
the  two  halves  of  the  pediment ;  for  on  her  own  temple 
no  one,  of  course,  could  be  a  proper  balance  to  Athena 
save  perhaps  Zeus  himself.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
birth  was  actually  represented,  that  is  the  very  moment 
when  Athena  appeared  from  the  head  of  her  father,  then 
on  account  of  the  limitations  of  space  she  would  have 
been  diminutive  in  size;  for  the  large  figures  of  gods 
standing  to  the  right  and  left  of  the  center  prevented 
the  sculptor  from  reducing  the  proportion  of  the  seated 
Zeus  for  the  sake  of  more  space  for  Athena.  But  such 
a  diminutive  size  of  the  goddess  (the  ridiculous  appear- 
ance of  which  is  seen  in  vase  paintings)  was  nowhere 


SUBJECT  OF  EAST  PEDIMENT  233 

less  in  place  than  on  her  own  temple,  not  to  speak  of 
the  great  difficulty  of  designing  an  artistically  satisfac- 
tory group  of  two  figures,  of  whom  the  one  appears 
through  an  unnatural  aperture  made  in  the  body  of 
the  other. 

Professor  Kekule  von  Stradonitz  has  pointed  out  that 
Christian  art  had  to  grapple  with  a  similar  problem  in 
the  representation  of  the  creation  of  Eve.  The  best 
solutions  were  given  by  Michelangelo  and  by  Raphael. 
Michelangelo  represented  the  almost  completed  creation 
of  the  woman,  whose  feet  alone  were  hidden  in  the  side 
of  Adam,  but  under  such  a  dense  shadow  that  the 
unpleasantness  of  the  earlier  representations  of  an  open 
wound  was  avoided.  Raphael  pictured  the  moment 
immediately  following  Eve^s  creation,  when  she  stood 
before  Adam,  and  only  his  amazed  looks  betrayed  the 
recentness  of  her  appearance. 

No  direct  inferences  can  be  drawn  from  these  pictures 
as  to  the  Parthenon  pediments,  beyond  perhaps  the 
lesson  that  the  genius  of  the  Greek  sculptor  could  have 
found  as  satisfactory  a  solution  for  the  problems  which 
confronted  him  as  Michelangelo  and  Raphael  found 
for  theirs, — even  though  his  were  the  more  difficult 
problems  of  sculpture  as  compared  with  those  of  paint- 
ing. If  we  to-day,  with  all  the  central  figures  of.c'he 
pediment  lost,  were  able  to  reconstruct  it,  we  would 
thereby  show  that  our  genius  was  equal  to  his.  But 
this,  after  a  study  of  the  frieze,  appears  little  likely  to 


234 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


be  the  case.  It  is  therefore  a  futile,  though  for  many 
people  an  apparently  not  uninteresting,  attempt  to  offer 
imaginary  reconstructions  of  the  lost  parts  of  the  pedi- 
ment. In  all  that  have  been  published  the  grand  sim- 
plicity and  convincing  directness  of  the  few  preserved 
corner  figures  is  completely  lost. 

For  an  understanding  of  the  ten  preserved  figures, 
PI.  XII,  Figs.  3  and  4,  it  is  fortunately  not  necessary  to 
know  just  how  the  center  was  arranged ;  for  it  suffices 
to  realize  that  some  moment  of  intimate  connection 
with  the  birth  of  Athena  was  represented.  Athena  was 
the  goddess  of  the  air,  of  that  clear  crispness  of  the 
atmosphere  which  the  Athenians  believed  had  given 
them  their  intellectual  superiority.  She  was  the  god- 
dess of  wisdom  and  thrifty  pursuits  of  the  house  and 
home;  she  was  the  patron  goddess  of  Athens.  Her 
birth,  in  short,  meant  for  her  people  the  creation  of 
the  only  kind  of  life  that  was  worth  living.  It  is  little 
wonder,  therefore,  that  the  message  of  her  birth  should 
arouse  in  the  Athenians  an  intensity  of  emotion  not 
unlike  the  feelings  with  which  devout  Christians  listen 
to  the  message  of  Bethlehem. 

To  portray  these  feelings  was  the  purpose  of  the  east- 
pediment  sculptor.  He  could  absolve  himself  of  his  task 
in  two  ways,  —  either  by  showing  the  figures  which 
surrounded  the  central  scene  transported  by  joy  and 
admiration,  or  by  suggesting  in  their  forms  and  attitudes 
those  feelings  which  they  would  display  when  the  news 


DAWN  AND  SUNRISE  235 

reached  them.  The  sculptor,  knowing  the  impossibility 
of  catching  in  stone  the  height  of  an  emotion,  selected 
the  latter  way.  An  attempt  in  the  other  direction 
may  often  make  a  more  powerful  first  appeal;  it  must, 
however,  always  fall  short  of  that  intensity  of  feeling 
which  is  left  to  the  imagination.  The  corner  figures, 
therefore,  are  conceived  so  far  away  from  the  center 
as  not  to  be  aware  of  the  birth  of  Athena;  for  this 
birth,  the  legend  says,  was  an  occurrence  of  surprising 
suddenness. 

The  sun  god  alone,  in  the  farthest  left-hand  corner, 
PL  XVIII,  Fig.  2,  seems  to  have  had  an  idea  of  the  im- 
portance of  the  day  which  he  was  ushering  in.  Head 
and  shoulders  he  rises  from  the  sea  with  his  four  horses 
of  "snowy  whiteness."  Only  their  heads  show  above 
the  rippling  waves,  which  flow  off  their  necks  and  cling 
to  the  muscular  arms  of  the  god.  The  roof  of  the 
pediment  projected  and  shut  out  the  rays  of  the  sun, 
which  had  gone  round  toward  the  south  by  the  time 
the  procession  arrived  before  the  Parthenon.  This 
corner,  therefore,  was  the  darkest  spot  of  the  entire  com- 
position. The  horses  were  slightly  more  in  the  light. 
In  their  eagerness  to  hasten  the  day  they  pulled  in 
uneven  rows,  so  that  the  nigh  horse  was  pushed  far 
out.  As  he  raised  his  head  it  projected  considerably 
beyond  the  edge  of  the  pedimental  roof;  it  caught  and 
fully  reflected  the  rays  of  the  sun,  —  it  was  the  dawn 
announcing  Helios! 


236  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

Helios  is  the  only  one  of  the  preserved  figures  of 
this  side  who  faces  the  central  action.  The  next  three 
figures,  PI.  XII,  Fig.  3,  form  one  group,  of  which  the 
nearest  is  a  god  or  hero  in  a  remarkably  quiet  attitude ; 
he  is  seated  on  a  rock  spread  with  a  drapery,  and  is 
watching,  perhaps,  the  sunrise.  In  the  absence  of  a 
better  name  (most  of  the  names  given  these  figures  are 
hypothetical)  he  is  often  called  Theseus.  "Theseus," 
PI.  XVIII,  Fig.  I,  has  his  back  turned  upon  the  cen- 
tral scene.  He  has  heard  no  word  of  what  is  taking 
place  there;  he  is  not  engaged  in  anything  in  particu- 
lar, and  appears  to  be  the  embodiment  of  perfect  repose 
and  equanimity.  The  very  lines  of  his  figure  are  self- 
centered,  not  carrying  one  with  sweeping  force  to  his 
neighbors  on  either  side,  as  is  frequently  the  case  on 
the  slabs  of  the  frieze.  The  drapery  on  his  seat,  with 
the  folds  all  radiating  from  one  point  in  beautiful  vari- 
ety, is  a  study  of  perfection.  They  remind  one  of  the 
folds  on  the  metope  with  the  victorious  Lapith,  PI.  XXI, 
Fig.  I,  or  the  indications  of  folds  on  the  panther  skin 
on  another  metope,  PI.  XXI,  Fig.  2 ;  but  they  are  far 
ahead  of  either.  Even  his  back  is  carved  with  great 
skill,  offering  an  indication  of  the  original  appearance  of 
the  front  before  it  had  suffered  under  the  inclemency  of 
the  weather.  His  feet  and  hands  are  broken  in  the  most 
unfortunate  places,  because  the  pointed  stumps  of  the 
arms  and  legs  are  unpleasant  to  look  at.  His  face  also 
has  become  battered  beyond  possibility  of  recognition; 


CORRESPONDING  GROUPS  237 

only  the  powerful  contours  of  his  head  are  discernible. 
He  was  carved  for  an  exalted  position,  and  was  not 
intended  to  be  studied  close  at  hand  or  removed  from 
his  surroundings.  He  was  a  part  of  the  entire  composi- 
tion, and  not  an  individual  with  passions  of  his  own. 
This  accounts  for  the  fact  that  he  now  often  fails  to 
interest  when  he  is  placed  by  himself,  and  not  rarely 
close  to  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles.  The  ancient  sculp- 
tor would  be  the  first  to  recognize  this  fact.  To  draw 
conclusions,  therefore,  as  often  is  done,  from  this  figure, 
as  to  the  art  standard  of  his  time,  is  unfair. 

In  masses  the  "  Theseus "  belongs  as  clearly  to  the 
next  two  figures,  PI.  XII,  Fig.  3,  as  the  "  Three  Fates " 
on  the  other  side  of  the  pediment  belong  together.  The 
two  women  are  carved  as  one  intimate  group.  This 
is  seen  not  only  from  their  attitudes  but  also  from  the 
fact  that  their  seats  and  bodies  appear  to  be  hewn  of 
one  block.  Because  of  this  intimacy  they  are  generally 
called  Demeter  and  Persephone.  They  are  engaged  in 
conversation,  as  appears  from  their  gestures.  The  frac- 
ture of  the  neck  of  the  taller  woman  indicates  that  she  had 
turned  her  head  to  her  companion.  Her  whole  attitude 
shows  that  she  cannot  keep  her  head  long  in  this  posi- 
tion; she  hsiS  just  turned,  and  in  this  instant  Athena  is 
born.  The  next  minute  she  will  look  back  to  the  center, 
toward  which  her  body  is  inclined,  and  to  which  the 
lines  of  her  raised  arm  are  pointing;  then  she  will  see 
Athena,  and  will  rise  —  her  left  leg  is  drawn  in- — and 


238 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


pass  the  word,  and  her  companion  will  jump  up,  and 
"  Theseus  "  will  hear  the  news,  and  from  Helios  and  his 
eager  horses  on  to  the  center  there  will  be  one  group 
of  figures  revealing  their  joy  and  awe  at  the  glorious 
event  of  the  birth  of  Athena. 

This  idea  is  helped  along  by  the  last  of  the  preserved 
figures,  perhaps  Iris,  PI.  XIX,  Fig.  3,  the  messenger  of 
the  gods,  who,  with  her  message  of  realized  freedom, 
is  hurrying  past  the  women  down  to  waiting  humanity. 
The  swiftness  of  her  onward  movement  is  shown  in  the 
long  deep  gulfs  of  her  folds,  and  in  the  lines  of  her  body, 
which  leans  forward  gently  to  encounter  the  powerful 
winds  that  her  velocity  has  awakened. 

Somewhere  near  by,  but  perhaps  on  the  other  side, 
there  was  another  figure,  PI.  XIX,  Fig.  2,  probably  sent 
on  the  same  errand.  This  figure  is  not  running,  like 
Iris,  but  flying.  She  wears  a  short  chiton,  which  leaves 
her  knees  bare,  and  cannot  therefore  be  Nike,  as  she  is 
generally  called;  for  Nike  was  never  thus  represented. 
Catching  the  breath  of  air,  her  thin  drapery  is  pressed 
against  her  beautiful  body,  and  at  the  side  is  fluttering 
away  with  the  passing  wind. 

This  figure,  which  does  not  appear  in  the  drawings, 
PL  XIV,  Fig.  2,  of  the  east  pediment  which  Jacques 
Carrey  made  eleven  years  before  the  explosion  of  the 
Parthenon,  bears  a  faint  resemblance  to  one  of  the  fig- 
ures which  he  drew  on  the  west  frieze,  and  which  is  now 
lost.    When  the  Parthenon  sculptures  were  removed  to 


DOUBTED  IDENTITY  239 

England,  Visconti,  the  then  greatest  archaeologist,  pub- 
lished detailed  accounts  of  them.  Of  this  figure,  he  said 
he  did  not  know  its  provenance.  In  a  later  publication, 
he  said  the  figure  belonged  to  the  east  pediment,  with- 
out giving  the  reasons  for  his  change  of  mind;  but  this 
omission  on  his  part  is  responsible  for  the  mistake  of 
some  scholars  who,  disregarding  his  later  statement, 
have  assigned  the  "  Nike  "  to  the  west  pediment.  These 
same  men,  however,  are  constantly  accepting  other  as- 
sertions of  Visconti  without  proof.  If  the  order  of  his 
publications  was  reversed,  there  might  be  an  excuse  for 
discrediting  him;  but  since  he  made  the  positive  state- 
ment last,  and  probably  after  having  found  additional 
data,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  his  word.  The  frac- 
tures of  the  arms,  moreover,  show  that  "  Nike  "  held  her 
arms  very  differently  from  the  figure  drawn  by  Carrey ; 
and  since  in  spirit,  finally,  she  belongs  unmistakably  to 
the  east  pediment,  it  is  wrong  to  assign  her  to  any 
other  place. 

Perhaps  the  most  beautiful,  and  surely  the  best  known, 
figures  of  the  east  pediment  are  the  "  Three  Fates,"  page 
232.  They  balance  "Theseus"  and  the  two  seated  fig- 
ures on  the  other  side.  But  while  the  two  seated  figures 
there  are  carved  from  one  block  and  in  close  juxtaposi- 
tion, one  seated  and  one  reclining  figure  are  thus  treated 
here.  The  sculptor  was  prompted  by  the  same  feeling 
for  variety  in  the  balance  of  his  figures  that  had  con- 
trolled the  compositions  of  the  earlier  artist  who  carved 


240  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

the  relief  of  Apollo  and  the  Nymphs  and  Hermes  and 
the  Graces,  PL  VII,  Figs.  1-3.  The  perfect  ease  and 
graceful  indifference  of  the  reclining  figure  are  beyond 
description.  Who  could  ever,  even  for  a  moment,  im- 
agine that  she  is  lying  there  in  the  lap  of  her  sister  for 
any  other  reason  than  that  she  wants  to?  Who  could 
ever  think  of  the  limitation  of  space,  and  of  the  fact 
that  the  pediment  roof  is  coming  down  here  so  low  that 
she  has  to  be  represented  reclining  ?  The  perfection  of 
these  figures  lies  in  the  fact  that  they  are  the  most 
adequate  expression  of  their  conceptions.  It  is  there- 
fore more  disturbing  than  helpful  to  have  any  one  point 
out  the  means  by  which  the  artists  have  attained  their 
success. 

Directly  in  front  of  the  "  Fates  "  the  moon  is  driving 
her  chariot  into  the  sea.  The  well-preserved  head  of 
one  of  her  horses,  PI.  XVIII,  Fig.  3,  is  often  called  the 
most  sublime  creation  of  ancient  animal  sculpture.  It 
is  a  beautiful  head,  but  hardly  nobler  in  conception 
than  the  spirited  nigh  horse  of  Helios  welcoming  the 
day.  The  two  horses  are  different:  there  the  joy  at 
the  beginning,  here  the  quiet  pleasure  at  the  course 
that  has  been  run.  Between  them  they  may  mark  the 
day  of  the  birth  of  Athena. 

In  keeping  with  the  more  peaceful  representation  of 
the  moon,  all  the  figures  on  this  side  are  quieter.  The 
seated  figure,  however,  has  already  drawn  in  her  foot, 
preparatory  to  rising,  and  is  half  leaning  forward.  Soon 


SUPREME  MASTERY 


241 


the  news  of  the  central  action  will  come  to  her,  and 
she  will  rise  and  pass  the  word,  and  her  companion 
will  hear  it  and  in  her  turn  counsel  the  resting  sister 
to  wake  to  the  full  realization  of  what  has  occurred. 
In  a  minute  these  figures  will  join  in  the  joyful  expres- 
sion of  the  one  thought  which  pervades  the  pediment, 
—  "Athena  is  born!" 

With  these  ten  figures  one  forgets  the  limitations  of 
a  triangular  space  which  they  were  designed  to  fill.  In 
Aigina  such  limitations  were  ever  present;  in  the  west 
pediment  of  Olympia  they  could  not  disappear  because 
the  spectator  was  constantly  reminded  of  the  skill  with 
which  the  artist  had  successfully  striven  to  overcome 
them ;  in  the  Parthenon  they  are  non-existing.  It  is 
impossible  to  think  of  these  figures  as  carved  in  any 
other  way.  However  much  or  however  little  space 
there  may  be  above  them,  they  must  be  thus  or  not 
at  all. 

Because  of  this  supreme  mastery,  this  willingness 
to  submit  to  restrictions  and  then  make  them  appear 
not  to  be  restrictions,  one  is  tempted  to  assign  this  pedi- 
ment to  the  greatest  sculptor  of  the  time,  to  Pheidias. 
This  attribution,  therefore,  is  not  made  on  the  strength 
of  any  external  evidence,  such  as  the  story  that  he  had 
charge  of  all  the  buildings,  but  on  the  internal  evidence 
of  unrivaled  excellence  of  composition.  To  assign  the 
pediment  to  Pheidias  does  not  mean  to  credit  him  with 
having  carved  all  or  even  a  majority  of  the  figures  with 


242  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

his  own  hand.  This  would  have  been  impossible.  It 
suggests,  however,  that  the  superiority  of  the  "  Fates  " 
over  all  other  figures,  even  "  Nike,"  may  possibly  be  due 
to  his  touch. 

The  West  Pediment 

The  west  pediment  is  less  successful,  although  it  too 
marked  a  great  advance  over  previous  achievements. 
When  Carrey  made  his  drawings  it  was  almost  intact,  so 
that  its  composition  is  well  known  to-day.  The  figures 
themselves,  however,  are  almost  completely  destroyed. 
When  Morosini  was  forced  to  leave  Athens  in  1688  he 
wanted  to  take  some  "keepsakes"  away  with  him,  and 
decided  upon  the  central  figures  of  the  west  pediment. 
His  workmen  were  careless  and  lacking  in  skill;  the 
ropes  broke,  the  figures  fell,  and  "  were  broken  to  dust," 
as  the  old  chronicler  relates.  This  was  not  literally 
true,  because  fragments  of  them  have  been  found  about 
the  Parthenon ;  they  were,  however,  so  badly  broken  that 
Morosini  no  longer  cared  for  them.  But  some  other 
pieces  he  and  his  companions  seem  to  have  taken 
away  with  them  to  Venice.  A  head  among  them  was 
probably  from  the  Parthenon;  for  it  shows  the  same 
formation  of  the  skull  as  "  Theseus,"  who  is  the  only 
figure  whose  head  is  not  lost.  This  head,  PI.  XXXIX, 
Fig.  2,  eventually  came  into  the  hands  first  of  a  Mr. 
Weber,  and  then  of  Comte  Laborde.  To-day  it  is  in 
Paris,  known  as  the  Weber  or  the  Laborde  head.  The 


THE  WEST  PEDIMENT  243 

restoration  of  an  outrageous  nose  and  of  conventional 
lips  has  completely  spoiled  it.  What  has  become  of  the 
other  figures  is  not  known.  Carrey  drew  eighteen  (per- 
haps twenty)  almost  intact,  PI.  XIV,  Fig.  2;  to-day  not 
more  than  six  have  left  recognizable  fragments,  while 
only  one  fairly  complete  statue  is  known. 

This  well-preserved  statue,  PI.  XIII,  Fig.  4,  from  the 
north  corner  of  the  pediment,  Pausanias  called  a  river 
god ;  to-day  it  is  known  as  "  Kephissos "  or  "  Ilissos." 
The  flowing  lines  of  the  figure,  and  of  its  drapery  which 
has  the  appearance  of  actual  dampness,  certainly  are 
more  in  keeping  with  the  conception  of  a  river  god  than 
were  several  of  the  Olympia  figures  which  Pausanias 
explained  in  the  same  way.  The  southeast  figure  there, 
with  its  bold  twist,  marked  a  great  advance  over  the 
dying  warrior  from  Aigina,  and  showed  the  comparative 
freedom  of  conception  to  which  the  artist  had  advanced. 
Compared  with  the  "  Kephissos "  that  freedom  was 
slight,  for  it  was  new  and  untried.  The  Parthenon 
sculptor,  on  the  other  hand,  who  knew  the  human  body 
better,  and  was  familiar  with  every  twist  and  turn  that 
the  several  sets  of  muscles  permit  a  man  to  make  simul- 
taneously, has  shown  his  knowledge  to  a  degree  which 
is  almost  unpleasant  in  its  perfection.  This  is  largely 
due  to  the  fact  that  he  selected  a  moment  for  repre- 
sentation which  at  best  is  instantaneous;  for  it  requires 
a  painful  exercise  of  muscular  energy  to  keep  one's  self 
long  in  the  position  of  "  Kephissos."    The  transitory 


244 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


ought  only  to  be  represented  when  the  movement  is 
swift,  as  in  the  figures  by  Myron;  for  it  leaves  the 
impression  of  a  permanent  position  when  the  movement 
is  slow.  This  is  the  case  with  "  Kephissos,"  who,  if  he 
is  not  altogether  painful  to  look  at,  especially  not  at  a 
casual  glance,  owes  this  to  the  use  that  is  made  of  his 
drapery.  Apparently  the  artist  intended  to  give  the 
impression  of  an  easily  flowing  curve  suggestive  of  flow- 
ing water.  Knowing  the  impossibility  of  pressing  the 
human  form  into  such  a  curve  without  doing  great 
violence  to  nature,  he  designed  the  drapery  to  convey 
his  idea.  The  drapery  is  not  seen  to  its  full  extent; 
for  it  disappears  behind  the  back  of  the  god,  and  toward 
the  end  is  only  dimly  recognized.  Enough  of  it  is  seen, 
however,  to  suggest  the  rest.  The  curve  of  the  body 
compared  with  the  curve  of  the  drapery  is  slight;  and 
because  it  is  so  much  less  than  that  suggested  by  the 
drapery,  the  fact  is  overlooked  that  it  is  more  than  a 
body  can  express  without  losing  its  graceful  appearance. 

Thus  a  new  principle  of  art  is  established  which  is 
the  natural  outcome  of  suggesting  more  than  can  be 
seen,  and  consists  of  suggesting  less  than  is  actually 
carved.  Such  a  device  is,  of  course,  only  permissible 
when  the  position  of  the  figure,  or  other  conditions, 
renders  a  continuous  inspection  impossible,  so  that  the 
beholder  is  obliged  to  rely  on  his  first  impression.  This 
was  the  case  with  "  Kephissos " ;  for  at  the  height  of 
more  than  fifty  feet  it  would  have  been  painful  for  the 


NEW  PRINCIPLE  ESTABLISHED  245 

visitor  to  crane  his  neck  in  order  to  look  at  him  long. 
The  dangerous  twist  of  his  body,  therefore,  was  prob- 
ably consciously  resorted  to  by  the  artist,  who  not  only 
knew  the  help  it  would  be  in  carrying  out  the  suggested 
idea  of  the  flowing  curve  but  who  also  trusted  to  the 
height  of  the  pediment  to  have  it  passed  unscrutinized. 
At  the  present  day,  when  the  statue  is  seen  on  the 
level  and  is  constantly  so  photographed,  scrutiny  can, 
of  course,  no  longer  be  deferred. 

The  subject  of  the  pediment  was  the  struggle  between 
Athena  and  Poseidon  for  the  guardianship  of  Athens. 
Was  the  future  of  Athens  to  lie  on  the  sea  or  on  the 
land }  Everybody  knows  that  it  was  the  Athenian  fleet 
which  brought  her  her  victories,  and  nobody  doubts  that 
it  was  this  same  fleet  which  hastened  her  fall.  The 
most  conservative  men  in  Athens  always  opposed  her 
dominion  on  the  sea.  And  even  the  great  masses  of 
the  people,  carried  away  by  the  brilliant  policies  of 
Themistokles  and  Alkibiades,  believed,  it  seems,  in  the 
bottom  of  their  hearts  that  Athens  was  most  securely 
founded  in  the  resources  of  her  land.  The  empire 
gained  on  the  sea  was  lost  within  one  century;  the 
achievements  made  on  land,  under  the  guardianship  of 
Athena,  have  survived  two  millennia. 

The  contest  of  the  rival  gods  was  to  take  place  before 
their  assembled  peers.  They  had  agreed  that  he  should 
receive  the  prize  who  gave  to  the  citizens  of  Athens  the 
most  valuable  gift.    Poseidon  struck  the  rock  with  his 


246  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

trident,  and  revealed  a  salt  spring.  This  was  his  sym- 
bolic gift  of  the  dominion  over  the  sea.  So  confident 
was  he  that  this  was  the  best  possible  present,  that  in 
the  pediment  he  is  seen  stepping  over  the  center  line, 
ready  to  assume  his  place  as  guardian  god.  But  then 
Athena  creates  the  olive  tree,  and  Poseidon  himself  has 
to  recoil  before  the  superiority  of  Athena's  gift.  This 
sudden  retreat  of  the  god,  who  had  begun  to  place  him- 
self in  the  center  of  the  pediment,  was  the  most  power- 
ful tribute  that  could  have  been  paid  to  Athena's  gift. 
The  importance  of  the  olive  tree  was  thus  brought  out 
much  more  strongly  by  means  of  suggestion  than  it 
could  have  been  actually  represented. 

These  two  gods  filled  the  large  center  space  of  the 
pediment  extremely  well.  Poseidon  was  naturally  of 
larger  proportions  than  Athena,  and  belonged  on  ac- 
count of  his  forwardness  just  as  naturally  more  directly 
under  the  apex  of  the  roof,  where  the  pediment  was 
higher  than  it  was  where  Athena  stood.  Both  gods 
are  accompanied  by  their  chariots.  Their  horses  enter 
into  the  spirit  of  the  contest  and  are  rearing,  with  their 
heads  high  up  in  the  air.  In  this  way  the  artist  tried 
to  fill  the  large  spaces  at  the  sides  of  Athena  and  of 
Poseidon.  The  result,  however,  was  not  successful. 
The  chariots,  which  occupy  too  much  space,  put  the 
figures  in  the  corners  out  of  touch  with  the  powerful 
central  scene.  The  relation,  therefore,  of  all  these  fig- 
ures to  the  general  plan  of  the  composition  is  slight,  for 


THE  PARTHENON  247 

they  appear  to  be  introduced  for  the  sole  purpose  of 
filling  the  corners.  The  whole  story  is  told  by  the 
two  central  figures;  the  other  figures,  instead  of  inten- 
sifying it,  detract  from  its  vividness. 

The  Parthenon  sculptures,  then,  in  spite  of  all  their 
excellence,  are  not  perfect,  nor  can  any  work  of  art  be 
perfect  in  the  sense  of  suggesting  no  thoughts  that  have 
not  found  their  full  expression.  Perfection  in  mediocrity 
is  readily  attained,  but  in  the  highest  regions  it  is  rare. 
The  thoughts  there  are  so  many  and  so  lofty  that  they 
defy  concrete  interpretation.  The  greatest  work  of  art 
is  one  which,  while  it  stimulates  the  noblest  feelings, 
offers  to  the  intellect  the  least  chance  of  finding  fault 
with  its  execution.  Judged  by  this  standard,  the  Par- 
thenon sculptures  in  the  field  of  art  rank,  and  probably 
always  will  rank,  second  to  none. 


CHAPTER  XX 


THE  HUMAN  BODY 

While  Pheidias  the  Athenian  strove  to  express  his 
visions  of  gods  and  godlike  men,  some  of  his  contem- 
poraries struck  out  in  a  different  direction.  A  body- 
is  a  body,  they  apparently  thought,  beautiful  in  itself 
and  well  deserving  of  careful  study.  The  question  with 
them  was  not,  What  is  the  noblest  thought  which  a 
body  may  be  made  to  express?  but,  What  is  the  best 
way  of  representing  the  body  itself  ?  Men  like  Pheidias 
and  his  immediate  co-workers  might  be  divinely  uncon- 
scious of  the  best  mode  of  carving  the  human  form; 
the  depth  of  their  thoughts  ennobled  whatever  vehicle 
they  chose.  In  the  hands  of  lesser  men  the  practice 
of  Pheidias  might  have  been  unsuccessful  if  it  had  not 
been  for  the  beneficial  influence  of  this  other  school. 

This  school  was  headed  by  Polykleitos  of  Argos,  a 

man  who  in  skill  and  science  was  second  to  none,  but 

who  was  impatient,  it  seems,  of  the  vastness  of  ideas 

by  which  men  are  elevated  above  themselves.    "  True 

art,"  Mr.  Ruskin  says,  "emanates  from  the  heart,  and 

associates  with  it  the  head,  yet  as  inferior  to  the 

heart,  and  the  hand,  yet  as  inferior  to  the  heart  and 

head,  and  thus  brings  out  the  whole  man."    All  the 

248 


Hera  of  Argos  (Athens) 
Correct  view 


THE  TYPICAL  MALE  FIGURE 


249 


art  of  Pheidias  emanated  from  the  heart,  —  that  is,  the 
soul,  the  noble  personality  of  the  man.  It  makes  its 
chief  appeal,  therefore,  to  those  people  who  possess 
vigor  and  sincerity  of  emotion.  Argive  art  emanated 
from  the  head,  to  which  the  skill  of  the  hand  was 
added  as  a  worthy  second.  Dr.  Waldstein  in  his  recent 
essay  on  Polykleitos  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  Poly- 
kleitos  was  the  Greek  sculptor  of  beauty  par  excellence. 
This  may  be  so,  but  his  was  only  physical  beauty, 
pleasant  to  behold  when  it  was  at  its  best,  as  in  the 
fragments  from  the  recently  excavated  Argive  Heraion 
(which  may  be  his),  but  never  synonymous  with  good- 
ness and  nobility,  the  contact  with  which  makes  men 
better  and  happier. 

The  Typical  Male  Figure 

One  of  the  most  famous  works  of  the  Argive  school 
is  probably  preserved  in  a  Roman  marble  copy  in  the 
Museum  of  Naples,  PI.  XXII,  Fig.  i.  It  represents  a 
young  man,  who  has  shouldered  his  spear,  walking. 
His  abdominal  muscles  are  rather  prominent.  In  the 
original,  however,  which  was  of  bronze,  the  glittering 
hue  of  the  metal  doubtless  subdued  what  the  softer 
surface  of  the  copy  reveals  to  excess.  The  modern 
spectator,  moreover,  who  has  seen  Sandow  exhibit  his 
enormous  physical  strength,  turns  to  the  Doryphoros 
(Spear  Bearer)  with  high  respect  for  the  Greek  sense 
of  moderation. 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  story  goes  that  Polykleitos  made  a  most  careful 
study  of  the  proportions  of  the  human  body,  and  even 
published  a  treatise  on  the  subject.  To  elucidate  his 
views  still  further  he  carved  a  statue,  known  as  the 
Kanon  (Rule),  and  there  are  good  reasons  to  believe 
that  the  Kanon  and  the  Doryphoros  are  identical.  If 
this  is  the  case,  the  origin  of  the  statue  explains  its 
soulless  appearance.  It  is  not  a  personality  the  artist 
wanted  to  carve,  but  a  body;  it  is  not  the  voluntary 
movement  of  a  thinking  human  being  which  supplies 
the  pose,  but  the  desire  on  the  part  of  the  artist  to 
show  the  body  to  its  best  advantage.  No  longer  rep- 
resented as  starting  off  to  walk  like  the  "Apollo"  of 
Tenea,  page  80,  the  Doryphoros  is  seen  in  the  act 
of  walking,  the  right  foot  in  advance.  The  left  heel 
is  raised  from  the  ground  in  accordance  with  the 
greater  skill  of  the  artist.  In  general  design,  however, 
the  figure  is  the  unmistakable  descendant  of  the  early 
"Apollo"  statues,  conceived  on  a  front  plane  and  with 
a  vertical  center  line.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  no  visible 
line  in  the  Doryphoros.  He  has  taken  a  step,  and  with 
it  his  right  side,  head  included,  has  moved  in  that 
direction;  but  soon  the  left  leg  will  advance,  and  then 
a  corresponding  movement  will  be  made  to  the  left. 
Between  these  two  movements  lies  the  vertical  center 
line.  Think  of  the  figure  at  rest,  and  the  correspond- 
ence with  the  early  type  becomes  apparent.  The 
Doryphoros  is  really  conceived   on  the  front  plane 


DORYPHOROS  OF  POLYKLEITOS  251 

with  the  two  halves  of  his  body  evenly  distributed. 
The  pose  actually  seen  is  but  a  second  thought,  in 
keeping  with  the  greater  skill  of  Polykleitos.  Beyond 
this  he  never  advanced.  It  is  found  in  all  his  statues 
known  to-day.  The  ancients  even  commented  on  it, 
saying  that  his  figures  were  all  as  if  after  the  same 
pattern. 

The  direction  of  the  head,  following  the  weight  of 
the  body,  is  noteworthy;  the  Doryphoros  is  a  thought- 
less, brainless,  soulless  automaton.  Many  modern  fig- 
ures are  modeled  after  the  Doryphoros.  Clothed  in  a 
uniform,  with  a  gun  instead  of  a  spear,  he  becomes  the 
volunteer.  But  a  volunteer  thinks  his  own  thoughts, 
and  while  he  marches  in  the  direction  which  the  cap- 
tain has  prescribed,  he  looks  about  him  to  the  left  or 
to  the  right.  This  turn  of  the  head,  away  from  the 
direction  of  the  onward  movement,  is  a  touch  which 
an  American  sculptor  recently  introduced  in  her  statue 
with  great  success.  It  never  occurred  to  Polykleitos; 
his  Doryphoros  was  not  to  be  a  man,  but  the  body 
of  a  man.  To-day  we  are  not  much  interested  in  a 
mere  body, — we  want  the  man;  and  it  is  therefore 
natural  that  the  Doryphoros  no  longer  pleases.  This 
is  more  especially  the  case  because  the  defects  of 
the  statue  were  such  that  the  Roman  copyists  could, 
and  naturally  did,  reproduce  them:  they  were  defects 
in  design.  The  beauties  of  the  statue,  on  the  other 
hand,  which  consisted  in  its  delicacy  of   finish,  its 


252  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

surface  modeling,  and  the  skill  which  was  shown  in 
its  unsupported  pose,  are  entirely  lost;  for  the  change 
of  material,  among  other  things,  necessitated  the  addi- 
tion of  the  clumsy  tree  trunk,  and  prevented  the  repro- 
duction of  the  play  of  light  and  shade  on  the  polished 
surface  of  the  original. 

The  verdict  of  the  ancients  that  Polykleitos  knew 
how  to  give  to  bodily  forms  an  almost  supernatural 
splendor  sounds  little  convincing  if  listened  to  in  front 
of  the  Naples  statue,  while  it  gains  in  probability 
when  one  runs  one's  finger  tips  over  some  of  the 
fragments  from  Argos  now  in  the  Central  Museum 
at  Athens.  Small  and  broken  though  these  fragments 
are,  they  are  of  prime  importance;  for  through  them  it 
has  become  possible  to  appreciate  the  strong  points 
of  Polykleitos.  He  designed  a  body,  any  kind  of  a 
body,  that  enabled  him  to  show  that  every  part  of  the 
human  form  can  become  by  skillful  treatment  a  thing 
of  beauty  in  itself.  Its  appeal  is  to  the  senses  and 
not  to  the  nobler  side  of  men.  Little  or  nothing  was 
left  to  the  imagination;  everything  was  to  be  seen,  and 
great  accuracy,  therefore,  was  demanded.  This  natu- 
rally led  to  the  study  of  the  proportions  of  the  human 
body.  The  Doryphoros  is  accurate ;  its  dimensions  are 
true  to  nature,  but  only  of  a  certain  type  of  people.  It 
is  neither  the  type  which  we  prefer  to-day  nor  the  one 
which  appealed  to  most  of  the  Greeks.  It  is  too 
stocky;  the  large  head,  about  one' seventh  of  the  total 


DIADOUMENOS  OF  POLYKLEITOS  253 

height  of  the  body,  gives  to  the  figure  the  appearance 
of  being  short.  Changes,  therefore,  were  soon  intro- 
duced, all  of  which,  however,  for  about  a  century  were 
based  upon  the  studies  of  Polykleitos. 

A  Diadoumenos,  which  is  almost  the  companion 
piece  to  the  Doryphoros,  is  preserved  in  several  Roman 
copies  and  one  Greek  copy.  The  statue  from  Vaison, 
PI.  XXII,  Fig.  2,  in  the  southern  part  of  France,  now 
in  the  British  Museum,  is  probably  the  most  accurate 
reproduction  of  the  original  bronze.  It  represents  a 
victorious  athlete  tying  a  fillet  around  his  head,  and 
is  designed  in  the  same  walking  attitude  as  the  Dory- 
phoros, although  this  pose  is  singularly  out  of  place 
here.  The  surface  finish  of  the  Diadoumenos  is,  like 
that  of  the  Naples  statue,  poor,  and  its  abdominal 
muscles  are  also  seemingly  too  prominent.  This  sug- 
gests the  value  of  the  experiment,  which  Overbeck 
once  recommended,  of  covering  a  cast  of  a  Polyklei- 
tean  statue  with  a  bronze  coating  in  order  to  obtain 
the  effect  of  the  prominent  muscles  on  a  surface  like 
that  of  the  original.  Until  this  has  been  done  it  is 
impossible  to  judge  how  much  of  the  unpleasant  ap- 
pearance of  the  statue  is  due  to  the  copyist,  and  how 
much  of  it  must  be  attributed  to  Polykleitos.  In  a 
few  cases  such  experiments  have  been  made,  and  only 
recently  a  cast  of  a  small  statue  thus  treated  has  been 
placed  on  exhibition  in  Dresden.  The  bronze  coating 
has  completely  changed  the  appearance  of  the  statue. 


254 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Greek  and  Roman  Copyists 

The  Greek  copy  of  the  Diadoumenos,  PI.  XXII,  Fig.  3, 
was  found  in  Delos  in  1894.  It  can  serve  as  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  different  workmanship  of  Greek  and  Roman 
sculptors.  The  Roman  copyist  was  like  a  machine :  he 
reproduced  the  original  as  accurately  as  his  technique 
permitted ;  there  was  no  place  for  the  personal  equation 
in  his  work.  The  Greek  was  far  more  concerned  with 
the  appearance  of  the  statue  than  with  its  actual  dimen- 
sions. He  knew  that  half  an  inch  of  muscle  carved  in 
marble  looks  different  from  the  same  amount  in  bronze, 
and  deviated,  therefore,  from  the  original.  The  result 
is  less  prominence  of  the  muscles,  owing  to  the  fuller 
proportions  of  the  body.  This  fullness,  however,  intro- 
duces an  undesirable  factor  into  the  composition,  making 
an  almost  voluptuous,  somewhat  lazy-looking  boy  of  the 
well-trained  athlete. 

Another  explanation  of  the  boy*s  soft,  flabby  flesh 
attributes  it  to  the  tendencies  of  later  times,  when 
men  preferred  soft  modulations  to  the  hardness  of 
strong  muscles.  Either  view  proves  that  the  maker 
of  the  Delian  statue  introduced  into  his  copy  his  own 
personal  ideas  and  preferences.  A  true  Greek  was  ever 
concerned  with  the  appearance  of  things,  and  cared 
little  for  absolute  correctness.  "As  a  thing  appears 
to  me,  so  it  is,"  was  at  all  times  his  conscious  or 
unconscious  motto. 


STATUES  OF  AMAZONS  255 

One  more  point  in  connection  with  the  copies  of 
Polykleitean  statues  may  be  mentioned.  It  has  gen- 
erally passed  unnoticed,  but  when  observed  is  apt  to 
be  used  as  a  reflection  upon  Polykleitos,  although  it  is 
doubtless  due  to  the  carelessness  of  the  copyist.  The 
back  of  the  head  of  the  Doryphoros  shows  a  greater 
diameter  than  is  suggested  by  the  face.  This  was  a 
labor-saving  device  of  the  Roman  stonecutter,  who  did 
not  care  to  carve  the  ears  standing  away  from  the 
head;  the  skull  is  therefore  broadened  and  the  ears 
are  not  undercut.  This  can  only  be  seen  halfway  back 
of  the  statue  from  a  position  which  the  ordinary  spec- 
tator would  not  be  apt  to  take.  The  Roman  copyist, 
who  worked  for  the  ordinary  people,  as  is  shown  by 
his  lack  of  refinement  and  surface  modeling,  could 
afford  to  take  liberties  with  those  parts  of  his  statues 
which  were  not  to  be  seen.  The  better  bronze  head 
of  the  Doryphoros,  PI.  XXIII,  Fig.  2,  from  Herculaneum 
exhibits  none  of  these  defects,  although  its  ears  are  even 
less  Polykleitean  than  those  of  the  Naples  statue;  they 
are  the  swollen  ears  of  the  professional  boxer,  which 
the  coarser  taste  of  a  later  age  had  begun  to  prefer. 

Statues  of  Amazons 

Together  with  the  head  of  the  Doryphoros  there 
was  found  the  head  of  an  Amazon,  repeating  the  type 
of  many  extant  statues.  We  know  that  Polykleitos 
made  an  Amazon,  and  are  told  that  with  it  he  won  a 


256 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


competition  over  several  famous  artists,  including  Phei- 
dias.  It  has  been  attempted,  therefore,  to  assign  the 
several  extant  statues  to  the  different  competitors,  but 
with  little  success.  The  story  of  the  competition  has 
too  much  of  the  character  of  an  anecdote,  and  the 
statues  themselves  are  too  similar  in  composition  to 
permit  of  a  classification  according  to  styles.  All  of 
them,  moreover,  PI.  XXIV,  Figs.  1-3,  exhibit  some 
Doryphoros  characteristics,  which  makes  it  probable 
that  they  go  back,  every  one  of  them,  to  a  t3^e  cre- 
ated by  Polykleitos.  Whether  any  accurately  copies  the 
original  Amazon  is  beyond  the  possibility  of  proof. 

The  whole  series  has  been  divided  in  three  or  four 
types,  of  which  the  most  important  is  called  the  Ber- 
lin type,  from  the  statue  in  the  museum  in  Berlin. 
The  square  pillar  is  a  restoration  after  another  copy 
in  the  Lansdowne  collection,  and  introduces  a  motive 
of  support  which  is  little  known  before  the  time  of 
Praxiteles,  but  which  Polykleitos  may  have  anticipated. 
The  strong  and  graceful  lines  of  the  figure  make  an 
immediate  and  powerful  appeal,  and  continue  to  do  so 
even  when  the  unnatural ness  of  the  composition  is 
noticed.  The  Amazon  is  wounded;  drops  of  blood 
are  trickling  from  a  cut  near  her  right  breast.  Weary 
of  the  strife  and  pained  by  her  wound,  she  has 
withdrawn  to  rest.  But  can  she  rest  as  we  see  her? 
The  striding  posture  of  her  legs,  so  characteristically 
Polykleitean,  is  equally  characteristically  out  of  place. 


STATUES  OF  AMAZONS  257 

Though  wounded  under  the  right  shoulder  she  is 
resting  the  weight  of  her  body  on  that  side,  even 
raising  her  right  arm,  so  that  the  unusual  tension  of 
the  muscles  must  greatly  aggravate  her  pain.  And 
yet  she  appears  to  be  resting!  Such  a  contradiction, 
such  a  disregard  of  the  mental  state  of  the  person 
portrayed,  is  just  what  we  should  expect  of  Poly- 
kleitos,  or  those  working  along  his  lines.  The  body, 
the  visible  tangible  body,  was  everything  to  them;  the 
mind,  the  feelings  of  the  person,  did  not  concern 
them.  It  is  true  that  not  all  the  copies  of  this  type 
show  a  wound;  but  when  the  cut  was  not  carved  it 
was  most  probably  painted,  for  it  is  not  likely  that  a 
later  artist  introduced  a  wound  not  contained  in  the 
original  design. 

The  drapery  of  the  figure,  which  is  carved  with 
much  skill,  is  pleasant  to  look  at.  Its  real  importance, 
however,  lies  in  the  splendor  which  it  sheds  upon  the 
nude  by  means  of  contrast.  The  nude  is  never  so 
beautiful  and  captivating  as  when  it  is  set  off  by  a 
bit  of  drapery.  The  garment  is  pulled  up  to  leave  the 
legs  bare;  on  the  left  shoulder  it  is  unclasped,  con- 
veying the  idea  that  the  woman  has  just  emerged 
from  a  violent  fray.  This  unclasped  robe  is  not  an 
accident,  nor  a  mere  trick  of  the  artist  by  which  to 
show  more  of  the  nude;  it  is  a  well-conceived  and 
telling  detail  of  the  whole  composition.  Similarly 
unclasped  garments  are  found  on  the  Theseion  and 


258  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

on  the  Parthenon  friezes  among  the  most  hurried 
youths.  One  of  the  apobates  on  the  north  frieze, 
catching  hold  of  the  chariot,  with  which  he  is  keep- 
ing pace,  has  his  garment  fallen  from  the  shoulder 
as  the  result  of  his  violent  movement. 

The  proportions  of  the  Amazon,  which  in  keeping 
with  the  traditional  character  of  her  race  are  rather 
full,  are  incompatible  with  the  typically  graceful  lines 
of  a  woman's  body.  The  discovery  of  these  lines,  or 
at  least  their  introduction  in  sculpture,  was  reserved 
for  a  later  age,  when  they  became  the  most  prominent 
and,  to  a  certain  extent,  most  charming  features  of 
a  new  phase  of  art.  Except  for  the  upper  part  of 
the  body  this  Amazon,  with  her  slim  though  well- 
developed  legs  and  her  muscular  arms,  might  be  a 
youthful  athlete. 

None  of  the  other  chief  types  of  Amazons,  the 
Capitoline  and  the  Mattel  type,  can  compare  with  the 
Berlin  type  in  spontaneity  and  charm.  The  Capi- 
toline type  is  a  seemingly  conscious  effort  to  correct 
the  contradiction  between  the  pose  and  the  wound. 
The  Amazon  has  shifted  the  weight  of  her  body  to 
the  left,  while  her  arm  is  raised  somewhat  less,  only 
high  enough  to  suggest  a  gesture  calling  for  pity. 
But  pity  is  ill  applied  to  an  Amazon,  and  we  like  the 
Berlin  girl  the  better  for  refusing  to  accept  ,it.  A 
little  cloak  slung  around  the  neck  is  added,  while 
the   short  garment,  somewhat   altered,   exhibits  less 


FRAGMENTS  FROM  ARGOS  259 

graceful  lines.  Its  motive,  as  if  unclasped  in  the  fray, 
has  been  changed,  for  the  Amazon  is  holding  it  away 
from  her  wound  to  prevent  its  chafing.  Her  head  is 
bent  in  the  direction  of  the  cut,  but  she  is  not  actu- 
ally looking  at  it,  for  if  she  were  her  head  would  be 
turned  down  so  far  that  her  face  could  not  be  seen. 
In  sculpture  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  the  figure 
actually  look  at  an  object,  —  a  turn  of  the  head  away 
from  the  ordinary  and  in  the  desired  direction  is  suffi- 
cient to  make  the  spectator  understand  the  composition. 

The  Mattel  type  shows  a  further  deviation  from 
the  Berlin  Amazon.  The  striding  posture  with  the 
right  leg  in  advance  is  preserved,  but  the  wound  has 
been  omitted;  the  drapery  is  somewhat  changed,  and 
the  attitude  of  the  arms  is  such  that  it  has  never  yet 
been  satisfactorily  explained. 

Frequent  mention  has  been  made  of  the  fragments 
from  the  temple  of  Hera  near  Argos,  PI.  XXIII,  Fig.  3 ; 
PI.  XV,  Fig.  4 ;  page  248.  This  temple  was  built  soon 
after  423  b.c.  from  plans  of  Polykleitos.  Dr.  Waldstein 
believes  that  Polykleitos  was  also  more  or  less  directly 
responsible  for  the  more  important  sculptured  fragments 
excavated  on  its  site  by  the  American  School  of  Clas- 
sical Studies  at  Athens.  He  makes  a  strong  point  of 
his  case,  and  it  may  unhesitatingly  be  conceded  that  in 
these  sculptures  we  see  some  of  the  best  extant  works 
of  the  Argive  school.    Some  of  the  heads  exhibit,  to 


26o 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


speak  with  the  ancients,  an  almost  supernatural  beauty 
of  bodily  forms.  This  is  their  charm;  but  it  is  the 
charm  of  physical  perfection,  of  a  beautiful  face,  and  not 
the  charm  of  a  noble  character  revealed  in  a  worthy 
body.  On  technical  grounds  a  comparison  of  these 
heads  with  the  best  heads  from  Olympia  is  very  in- 
structive. Here  as  there  the  profile  view  is  the  only 
one  that  is  satisfactory;  the  rest  is  hard  and  almost 
unfinished.  (Compare  PI.  XVI,  Fig.  i,  with  page  i88, 
and  PI.  XVI,  Fig.  2,  with  page  248.) 

Polykleitos  lived  to  be  an  old  man.  He  left  several 
prominent  pupils  who  apparently  continued  his  manner 
of  work  for  a  little  more  than  a  generation.  Then  the 
immediate  importance  of  his  school  comes  to  an  end; 
his  method  has  served  its  purpose.  It  has  taught  the 
Greeks  the  invaluable  lesson  of  how  to  represent  the 
human  body.  The  teaching  of  Polykleitos  is  like  that 
of  an  art  school:  it  prepares  one  for  the  creation  of 
masterpieces.  As  executing  artist  Polykleitos,  though 
a  Greek  by  birth,  was  most  distinctly  un-Greek.  He 
began  with  the  "head,"  and  neglected  the  "heart";  he 
paid  more  attention  to  things  as  they  are  than  as  they 
appear  to  be,  and  never  penetrated  to  the  soul  of  things. 
His  importance,  however,  in  an  age  when  men  ran  the 
danger  of  thinking  that  heart  and  hand  alone  can  create 
the  best  works  of  art,  is  such  that  it  cannot  possibly  be 
overestimated.  Un-Greek  though  he  was  in  his  work, 
he  prepared  the  way  for  Praxiteles  and  the  other  great 


FRAGMENTS  FROM  ARGOS 


261 


artists  of  the  fourth  century,  and  enabled  them  to  be 
among  the  most  Greek  of  all.  Polykleitos  to-day  may 
be  a  favorite  with  only  a  few ;  all,  however,  even  if  they 
feel  inclined  to  criticise  him,  will  be  ready  to  forgive 
his  shortcomings  when  they  understand  his  mission, — 
Comprendre  c'est  pardonner. 


\ 


CHAPTER  XXI 


THE  individual:  soul  and  body 

Athens  had  hardly  forged  to  the  front  and  begun  to 
put  her  stamp  of  the  noblest  conception  of  life  upon 
the  world,  when  the  folly  of  some  of  her  own  people 
entrapped  her  into  a  disastrous  war.  Not  fifty  years 
after  the  last  Persian  was  driven  from  Athens,  the  Pelo- 
ponnesian  war  broke  out.  It  lasted  nearly  thirty  years. 
When  peace  was  declared  Athens  was  no  longer  the 
mistress  of  Greece.  She  never  regained  her  political 
ascendency,  but  neither  the  war,  nor  the  Roman  yoke 
that  followed  with  the  centuries,  nor  the  Goths,  nor  the 
Turks,  nor  any  other  power  has  been  able  to  shake 
her  influence  over  the  most  refined  minds  of  the  ages 
both  past  and  present.  It  is  not  an  overstatement  to 
say  that  nobody  is,  or  ever  can  be,  an  educated  man 
who  has  not  come  under  the  ennobling  influence  of 
At^iens.  However  we  may  look  upon  classical  training, 
the  man  who  does  not  get  it  in  some  form  or  other 
lacks  that  quality  which  makes  of  him  a  man  in  the 
truest  sense  of  the  word. 

The  map  of  Greece  was  altered  —  her  intellectual  supe- 
riority continued  undiminished.    The  changes,  therefore, 

that  took  place  in  her  art  cannot  rightly  be  explained, 

262 


Hermes  of  Praxiteles 
(Olympia) 


i 


CHANGES  IN  GREECE  263 

as  is  often  done,  as  the  result  of  the  Peloponnesian  war. 
Artistic  activity  was  never  suspended :  the  Erechtheion 
was  erected,  and  the  caryatides  used  in  lieu  of  columns 
in  its  south  porch;  the  Athena-Nike  temple  was  built 
and  surrounded  with  its  famous  balustrade;  while  in 
Olympia  Paionios  erected  a  Nike  which,  though  badly 
broken,  still  rallies  as  many  genuine  admirers  about  it 
as  any  extant  statue.  In  view  of  such  an  uninterrupted 
expression  in  art  it  is  clearly  impossible  to  hold  the 
Peloponnesian  war  responsible  for  the  differences  in 
the  sculpture  of  the  fifth  and  the  fourth  centuries  b.c. 
On  the  contrary,  the  differences  are  such  as  had  to 
accompany  the  intellectual  growth  of  the  people.  Greek 
art  at  its  best  was  always  the  genuine  expression  of  the 
people's  conceptions.  When  these  changed,  art  could 
not  remain  the  same. 

If  this  is  kept  clearly  in  mind,  another  view  also,  fre- 
quently advanced,  is  seen  to  be  erroneous.  Pheidias, 
some  people  say,  had  done  the  best  that  could  be 
done  in  sculpture ;  his  successors,  aware  of  this  fact 
and  anxious  to  preserve  the  appearance  of  originality, 
bestowed  their  whole  attention  upon  the  refinement  of 
details  for  which  the  mighty  genius  of  Pheidias  had 
found  no  time.  Such  a  view  reduces  the  artists  of  the 
fourth  century  b.c.  to  a  low  level,  and  a  priore  renders 
a  just  appreciation  of  their  work  impossible. 

The  fact  is  that  the  attitude  of  the  Greeks  had 
undergone  a  gradual  but  complete  change  toward  the 


264 


GREEK  SCULFTURE 


individual.  In  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  b.c.  the 
individual  does  not  exist.  He  is  but  a  part  of  the  state 
to  which  he  owes  allegiance.  The  state  is  supreme,  and 
to  it  every  one  must  subordinate  himself.  If  he  does 
not,  —  if  he  begins  to  raise  his  head,  and  comes  into 
prominence  on  his  own  merits,  —  he  is  a  dangerous 
member  of  the  community,  and  is  ostracized.  The 
state,  the  people,  the  world  as  a  whole  are  studied ;  the 
personal  emotions  of  this  man  or  of  that  man  are  not 
considered  except  in  so  far  as  they  are  characteristic  of 
large  classes  of  people.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  is  impos- 
sible for  any  length  of  time.  Perikles  could  submit  to 
it,  but  he  was  as  much  above  the  ordinary  man  as  the 
Zeus  of  Pheidias  was  above  the  ordinary  conception  of 
a  god ;  Kreon  chafed  under  it,  and  Alkibiades  did  not 
suffer  it.  The  individual  was  calling  for  his  rights,  and 
they  could  not  be  withheld.  In  times  of  great  peril, 
when  the  nation  has  to  stand  up  against  a  common  foe, 
the  person  is  sunk  in  the  community ;  but  under  the 
sunshine  of  an  easy  life  the  conception  of  individual 
existence  ripens.  This  took  place  in  Greece,  and  we 
can  follow  it  in  Athens.  We  do  not  know  in  what  kind 
of  house  Perikles  lived,  but  we  do  know  that  Alkibiades 
pressed  one  of  the  great  painters  into  his  service  to  dec- 
orate his  dining  room.  The  unwillingness  with  which 
this  artist  complied,  for  he  thought  it  undignified  to 
place  his  art  at  the  service  of  a  private  individual,  and 
the  eagerness  with  which  Alkibiades  insisted,  show  the 


THE  INDIVIDUAL  265 

transition  from  the  old  to  the  new.  This  change  was 
bound  to  come,  and  it  would  have  resulted  even  with- 
out the  disastrous  end  of  the  war  which  left  no  worthy 
state  into  which  the  individual  could  feel  proud  to  sink 
himself.  If  one  were  writing  a  history  of  Greece  and 
were  looking  for  captions,  one  might  call  the  fifth 
century  "  The  State,"  and  the  fourth  century  "  The 
Individual." 

Contact  with  the  individual  brought  contact  with  his 
soul,  for  it  is  impossible  to  study  him  without  noticing 
his  various  moods  and  the  constant  strife  and  truce 
between  his  body  and  his  soul.  Once  realized  and 
deeply  felt,  such  a  view  clamors  for  expression.  In 
Greece  it  readily  found  it  in  the  art  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury B.C.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  the  grandest 
works  of  the  preceding  century  the  soul  had  a  place,  but 
it  was  never  the  soul  of  the  individual,  never  its  mani- 
festation at  a  given  moment.  It  was  always  the  imper- 
turbable depth  of  character  which  may  be  compared  to 
that  stillness  of  the  ocean  of  which  the  poet  sings: 

When  winds  are  raging  o'er  the  upper  ocean, 
And  billows  wild  contend  with  angry  roar, 

'T  is  said,  far  down  beneath  the  wild  commotion 
That  peaceful  stillness  reigneth  evermore. 

It  is  this  stillness  of  character,  far  removed  from  the 
turmoil  of  everyday  life,  which  gives  grandeur  to  the 
art  of  Pheidias;  it  is  the  billows  on  the  upper  ocean 


266 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


or  the  ripples  on  its  smiling  surface  which  account  for 
the  living  and  appealing  art  of  the  fourth  century.  The 
artists  of  this  age  cared  little  for  abstract  character, 
but  much  for  its  manifestation  under  the  adversities  or 
amenities  of  life.  The  distinguishing  mark  in  the  sculp- 
ture of  these  two  centuries,  therefore,  is  entirely  due 
to  the  attention  which  had  begun  to  be  paid  to  the 
individual. 

The  best  works  created  under  the  new  influences  are 
connected  with  the  names  of  Praxiteles  and  Skopas. 
Masters  both  of  technique  and  of  design,  they  are  yet 
as  different  as  two  men  of  the  same  age  can  be.  Sun- 
shine and  loving  thoughts  that  come  with  it  appealed 
to  Praxiteles;  Skopas  saw  grandeur  and  beauty  in  the 
elements  of  nature  and  in  the  passions  of  men.  His 
theme  was  the  strife  between  the  soul  and  the  body; 
the  complete,  though  momentary,  truce  between  them 
he  left  to  Praxiteles. 

Praxiteles 

All  the  works  attributed  to  Praxiteles  are  as  if  bathed 
in  the  sunshine  of  love,  and  Professor  Klein  is  right 
when  he  says  that  whenever  Praxiteles  put  his  chisel 
to  the  stone  the  little  god  of  love  was  peeping  over  his 
shoulder.  Moments  of  peace  and  pleasures  of  dreamy 
absent-mindedness  Praxiteles  knew  how  to  portray  as 
no  one  since.  Our  museums  are  filled  with  copies  of 
his  works,  many  of  which,  it  is  true,  were  only  inspired 


SATYR  STATUES  267 

by  him,  while  they  were  executed  by  his  pupils.  But 
even  they  show  his  importance.  An  intimate  knowl- 
edge with  a  few  will  make  us  know  Praxiteles  better 
than  a  hasty  review  of  many. 

There  is,  in  the  first  place,  the  "  Marble  Faun," 
PI.  XXVI,  Fig.  I.  This  little  satyr  has  left  the  com- 
pany of  friends;  at  the  edge  of  the  woods  he  stands, 
easily  leaning  against  a  tree  trunk.  The  tune  that  he 
may  have  played  on  his  pipe  is  forgotten.  Has  the 
tune  perhaps  made  him  forget  the  present,  and  directed 
his  thoughts  to  that  fairyland  whence  we  reluctantly 
return?  The  boy  is  at  rest:  the  bones  of  his  left  leg 
are  "  locked,"  relieving  the  muscles  of  their  strain,  while 
much  of  the  weight  of  the  upper  part  of  his  body  is 
supported  by  the  tree  trunk.  His  mind  is  equally  at 
ease.  His  rest,  however,  is  only  the  momentary  sus- 
pension of  activity.  Let  the  least  sound  call  the  satyr 
back  to  the  present  and  startle  him,  and  off  he  will  dart, 
like  a  doe,  on  his  long,  nimble,  powerful  legs.  And 
look  at  his  face,  —  the  sunshine  playing  on  it !  Watch 
it  and  the  muscles  of  your  own  face  will  relax.  This 
is  not  a  smile,  but  readiness  for  a  smile.  Without  a 
moment's  notice  he  will  burst  out  in  one  of  those  hearty 
gusts  of  laughter  with  which  we  credit  his  race,  —  half 
man,  half  thoughtless  beast.  For  such  he  is;  the  ears 
betray  him,  for  all  his  lovely  form.  Pointed  like  an 
animal's,  they  seek  a  hiding  place  in  his  tousled  shock 
of  hair,  but  they  cannot  be  hid.    They  have  given  him 


268 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


away  and  have  explained  the  spell  of  his  appearance. 
He  is  not  a  boy,  but  a  bewitching  satyr.  The  ears 
revealed  it,  and  now  we  see  it  in  the  leopard  skin 
slung  about  him,  in  the  lines  of  his  face,  in  the  nose, 
so  beautiful  in  shape  yet  so  un-Greek,  and  marvel  at 
not  having  noticed  it  before. 

Who  dares  to  speak  of  growing  skill?  This  is  mas- 
tery, and  appears  as  such  in  spite  of  the  loss  of  many 
a  pleasing  touch  in  the  copy.  The  leopard  skin  at  first 
had  a  long  tail  dangling  at  the  side  of  the  leg ;  the  lazy 
fingers  played  with  it,  and  seemed  to  move  it  to  and 
fro,  —  a  sign  of  life  and  of  activity  which  made  the 
stillness  of  the  little  fellow  only  more  conspicuous. 
The  surface  finish  of  the  statue  also  is  not  all  that 
could  be  desired,  being  much  inferior  to  that  of  a  torso 
in  the  Louvre.  This  torso,  PI.  XXVII,  Fig.  2,  is  so  beau- 
tiful that  Brunn  once  believed  it  was  the  original.  He 
was  mistaken,  for  its  finish  is  uneven  and  the  dangling 
tail  of  the  leopard  is  absent.  The  marble  copyists  were 
wise  in  omitting  this  detail  of  the  original.  In  mar- 
ble the  suggestion  of  the  swinging  movement  of  the 
tail,  which  had  to  be  attached  to  the  leg  in  several 
places,  could  not  be  retained.  With  this  suggestion 
gone  the  tail  became  an  unsatisfactory  addition.  It 
spoiled  the  outlines  of  the  leg.  This  is  best  seen 
in  the  unsatisfactory  statue  in  the  Vatican,  PI.  XXVII, 
Fig.  3,  which  is  the  only  copy  where  the  tail  has 
been  preserved. 


"SAUROKTONOS"  STATUES  269 

If  in  this  satyr  we  see  the  fanciful  creation  of  a 
strange  type,  the  so-called  Apollo  Sauroktonos,  PI.  XXVI, 
Fig.  2,  represents  a  boy  in  forms  that  came  more 
natural  to  a  Greek.  The  Sauroktonos  is  known  in 
several  statues,  of  which  the  one  in  the  Vatican  most 
resembles  the  original.  Unfortunately  it  is  in  such 
a  poor  state  of  preservation  that  extensive  restorations 
have  become  necessary.  The  face  is  almost  entirely 
modern,  and  so  are  the  greater  part  of  the  right  leg 
and  the  lower  part  of  the  right  arm.  The  original  was 
of  bronze  and  needed  no  limb  to  connect  it  with  the 
base  of  the  tree  trunk.  In  his  right  hand  the  boy  held 
an  arrow,  which  made  people  believe  he  was  trying  to 
slay  the  lizard  on  the  tree.  He  was  therefore  called 
Lizard  Slayer  (Sauroktonos),  which  name  has  stuck  to 
him  in  spite  of  its  inaccuracy. 

Easily  leaning  against  a  tree,  and  still  holding  the 
arrow,  a  reminder  of  the  pastime  whence  he  has  fled, 
a  boy  is  losing  himself  in  thoughts.  In  body  here,  he 
is  in  mind  away  off.  So  still  is  he  that  even  a  lizard, 
the  shyest  of  all  reptiles,  does  not  notice  him,  and  full 
of  curiosity  sets  out  on  an  exploring  trip  up  the  tree 
where  the  boy's  arm  has  met  his  eye.  The  lizard 
frequently  appears  in  Greek  art.  The  ancients  had 
a  legend  of  the  beautiful  sleeper  Endymion,  whom 
Artemis,  the  goddess  of  the  moon,  came  down  to  kiss 
because  she  loved  him.  This  pleasant  story  is  the 
subject  of  many  a  piece  of  sculpture.     Endymion  is 


270 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


SO  peacefully  asleep  that  a  lizard  plays  about  him 
with  perfect  confidence,  undisturbed  by  Artemis,  who 
approaches  with  the  mysterious  noiselessness  that  char- 
acterizes the  movements  of  the  moon.  Not  less  quiet 
than  he,  this  boy,  lovingly  called  Apollo,  leans  against 
the  tree.  He  is  not  asleep  but  lost  in  waking  dreams, 
and  his  stillness  is  the  more  apparent  since  it  is  con- 
trasted with  the  nimble  lizard. 

The  "  Sauroktonos "  is  perhaps  the  best  statue  in 
which  to  point  out  the  great  difference  between  Prax- 
iteles and  his  predecessors  in  the  conception  of  the 
human  body.  The  straight  center  line  has  disappeared, 
giving  way  to  a  graceful  curve.  This  curve  is  not  an 
afterthought,  as  the  deviations  from  the  vertical  line 
were  with  Polykleitos.  It  embodies  the  first  and  only 
conception  of  the  figure.  No  longer  tied  to  the  child's 
idea  of  man  as  one  of  bilateral  symmetry,  Praxiteles  was 
enabled  to  catch  glimpses  of  different  attitudes  expres- 
sive of  varying  moods.  One  he  preferred  to  all  others. 
It  occurs  with  slight  variations  in  almost  all  the  statues 
which  are  attributed  to  him  with  certainty,  and  is  the 
result  of  distributing  the  weight  of  the  body  between 
the  leg  of  one  side  and  the  arm  of  the  other  side,  which 
rests  on  an  external  support.  The  resulting  curve  is 
one  of  grace  and  ease,  well  capable  of  sustaining  the 
idea  of  effortless  repose.  It  also  draws  the  support 
intimately  into  the  composition.  The  tree  trunk  in  the 
"  Marble  Faun "  is  not  only  an  external  necessity,  but  an 


HERMES  OF  PRAXITELES  27 1 

integral  part  of  the  design,  without  which  the  thought 
of  the  artist  could  not  have  been  expressed.  In  the 
case  of  the  "  Sauroktonos  "  Professor  Klein  has  demon- 
strated the  importance  of  the  tree  as  the  bearer  of 
the  supporting  lines.  He  suggests  that  one  imagine 
another  boy  standing  on  the  right  side  of  the  tree  to 
correspond  to  the  Praxitelean  figure,  and  notice  how 
the  vertical  center  of  such  a  composition  coincides  with 
the  trunk.  Some  copyists  have  failed  to  notice  this; 
they  have  looked  upon  the  tree  as  the  material  support, 
and  have  spoiled  the  delicacy  of  the  design  by  drawing 
it  too  close  to  the  figure.  This  is  the  case  with  the 
statue  in  the  Louvre,  PL  XXVII,  Fig.  i,  and  more  espe- 
cially with  the  one  in  Dresden,  PI.  XXVII,  Fig.  4,  where 
no  space  at  all  is  left  between  the  boy  and  the  tree. 

The  surface  finish  is  inferior  on  all  the  extant  "  Sau- 
roktonos" statues,  but  the  imagination  readily  supplies 
it ;  for  we  possess  one  original  by  the  hand  of  Praxiteles 
himself,  and  can  there  study  the  delicacy  of  his  touch. 
His  Hermes  was  excavated  in  Olympia  in  1877.  It 
once  stood  in  the  temple  of  Hera,  which  was  the  old- 
est of  all  temples  in  the  sacred  precinct.  Its  walls 
were  of  sun-dried  bricks,  its  floor  of  clay.  When  de- 
struction befell  Olympia,  and  the  statue  was  knocked 
down,  it  fell  on  the  soft  floor  and  was  covered  with  the 
dusty  clay  of  the  crumbling  walls.  This  accounts  for 
its  remarkable  state  of  preservation.  It  was  in  antiq- 
uity not  classed  among  the  best  works  of  Praxiteles, 


272 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


and  received  only  one  passing  notice  by  Pausanias,  who 
said,  in  speaking  of  the  temple  of  Hera,  "  Later  they 
dedicated  there  some  other  things,  also  a  Hermes  of 
stone  carrying  the  young  Dionysos;  it  was  made  by 
Praxiteles." 

The  delight  with  which  this  statue  was  greeted 
is  equaled  only  by  the  admiration  which  has  been 
bestowed  upon  it  from  the  first.  From  photographs, 
PI.  XXVIII,  Fig.  I,  page  262,  it  is  impossible  to  under- 
stand the  beauty  of  its  modeling ;  one  must  go  to 
Olympia  and  see  the  Hermes  in  order  to  appreciate  the 
touch  of  Praxiteles.  Words,  inadequate  at  all  times  to 
interpret  great  beauties,  fail  in  the  attempt  to  describe 
the  wonderful  play  of  light  and  shade  on  the  surface 
of  this  statue.  In  this  respect  it  is  a  masterpiece,  and 
well  deserves  the  praise  which  it  lavishly  receives.  But 
one  must  not  be  carried  away  by  one's  admiration  of  the 
technique.  Nothing  is  less  fair  than  to  judge  the  entire 
art  of  Praxiteles  by  this  one  statue,  even  though  it  is 
the  only  extant  original.  There  is  justice  in  the  silence 
of  the  ancients,  for  among  the  greatest  works  of  Prax- 
iteles the  Hermes  has  no  place.  It  probably  belongs 
to  the  younger  days  of  the  artist.  The  curving  line 
of  the  body  and  the  tree  trunk  are  there,  but  the  gen- 
eral design  of  the  composition  seems  to  be  somewhat 
crowded,  and  is  certainly  less  free  and  masterful  than  in 
the  "  Sauroktonos  "  or  the  "  Marble  Faun,"  which  latter, 
by  the  way,  cannot  be  definitely  assigned  to  Praxiteles. 


HERMES  THE  DREAMER  273 

The  forms  of  the  Hermes  are  rather  full,  unpleasantly 
full  for  the  taste  of  some  people,  and  even  those  who 
approve  of  them  cannot  deny  that  the  sculptor  here  has 
come  dangerously  near  the  point  of  the  "  too  much." 
"  There  is  a  taste  of  the  end  in  the  Hermes,"  some 
one  said  who  was  perhaps  a  more  accurate  seer  than 
correct  observer.  His  view,  however,  has  been  taken  up 
recently  by  not  a  few  who  have  been  provoked  by  the 
indiscriminate  admirers  of  the  statue.  But  they  them- 
selves have  been  apt  to  go  too  far;  for  after  everything 
has  been  said,  the  Hermes  still  deserves,  as  the  best 
preserved  Greek  statue  of  the  fourth  century,  the  full 
amount  of  consideration  which  has  been  claimed  for  it. 

The  statue  represents  Hermes  the  Dreamer.  On  his 
way  from  heaven  to  the  nymphs  with  his  little  brother 
Dionysos,  he  has  alighted  near  the  edge  of  the  woods 
to  take  a  rest.  He  has  thrown  his  cloak  over  the  trunk, 
and  with  the  babe  still  on  his  arm  he  grows  forgetful 
of  the  present.  Look  at  him,  and  your  own  eyes  will 
wander  off  with  his  into  the  mysterious  distance.  The 
longer  one  looks  the  more  oblivious  one  grows  of  one's 
surroundings,  and,  like  Hermes,  one  fails  to  notice  the 
struggling  baby  god  on  his  arm.  It  is  in  spite  of  the 
little  Dionysos,  whose  vigorous  movements  might  be 
expected  to  call  the  older  brother  back  from  his  dreams, 
that  Hermes  revels  in  utter  self-abandonment. 

Praxiteles  has  achieved  his  great  success  largely  by 
means  of  the  eyes  of  the  figure,  without,  of  course, 


274 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


disregarding  all  the  other  devices  which  could  assist  him 
in  carrying  out  the  intended  illusion.  Nolens  volens  we 
look  at  the  eyes  of  Hermes;  we  are  drawn  within  their 
spell,  and  held  there  as  if  in  a  vise.  Try  as  we  may  to 
scan  the  other  features,  back  we  find  ourselves  at  the 
eyes.  Not  that  the  mouth,  nose,  and  cheeks  are  not 
beautiful ;  but  they  do  not  hold  our  attention :  they  are 
so  much  less  beautiful  than  the  eyes.  It  is  here  that 
Praxiteles  has  shown  his  supreme  mastery;  the  eyes 
were  to  be  prominent,  and  to  them  everything  had  to 
be  subordinated.  The  Roman  art  critics  did  not  under- 
stand him;  they  looked  at  details  and  were  not  con- 
cerned with  general  impressions.  They  are  therefore 
on  record  as  saying  that  Praxiteles  knew  how  to  make 
eyes  better  than  any  one  else,  but  that  his  mouths  were 
less  good.  Less  good  indeed,  if  studied  by  themselves ; 
perfect  if  studied  in  connection  with  the  general  idea 
which  their  subordination  was  to  enhance.  A  compari- 
son of  the  mouth  of  the  Hermes  with  the  mouth  of  one 
of  the  Akropolis  ladies,  page  144,  is  very  instructive. 
The  Romans  are  right :  the  mouth  is  less  perfect.  But 
let  one  compare  the  faces  as  a  whole.  The  Hermes 
brings  out  one  definite,  vivid  thought;  the  Akropolis 
figure  fails  to  live  before  one.  The  mouth  and  the  eyes 
are  equally  good :  the  impression  of  the  one  is  counter- 
acting, if  not  actually  contradicting,  the  impression  of 
the  others.  Praxiteles,  we  may  feel  sure,  knew  how  to 
carve  as  lovable  a  mouth  as  his  early  predecessors; 


WRONG  RESTORATIONS  275 

that  he  did  not  do  it  shows  no  lack  of  skill  on  his 
part,  but  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  requirements 
of  his  art. 

The  attempt  has  been  made  to  restore  the  Hermes, 
not  in  the  original  but  in  the  cast.  The  restoration, 
which  was  made  under  the  supervision  of  Professor 
Treu,  is  widely  known  and  is  generally  accepted  as 
correct.  In  it  Hermes  is  holding  up  a  bunch  of  grapes 
which  he  —  the  teasing  older  brother  —  is  withholding 
from  the  future  god  of  grapes  and  wine  and  revelry. 
This  bunch  of  grapes  is  an  abomination;  it  calls  Her- 
mes back  from  fairy  dreamland,  and  makes  of  the  vision- 
seeing  youth,  whose  happy  dreams  we  long  to  share,  a 
very  common  bantering  mortal.  For  this  reason  alone 
Treu's  restoration  ought  to  be  rejected.  But  it  also 
introduces  into  the  composition  the  idea  of  the  group, 
which  is  foreign  to  it.  In  this  instance  popular  opin- 
ion is  correct,  refusing  to  label  the  Olympia  statue  "A 
group:  Hermes  and  Dionysos,"  but  speaking  of  it  as 
the  "  Hermes  of  Praxiteles."  That  this  was  the  master's 
own  conception  is  clearly  seen  from  the  treatment  he 
has  given  to  Dionysos,  who  in  every  respect  is  executed 
as  an  accessory.  His  form  is  conventional ;  his  drapery 
is  rough  and  without  the  excellence  of  finish  which  is 
noticed  on  the  cloak  of  Hermes.  Dionysos  was  in  no 
way  to  detract  from  the  interest  which  the  spectator 
took  in  Hermes;  and  was  certainly  not  intended  to 
share  it,  as  he  doubtless  does,  when  by  the  introduction 


276  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

of  the  grapes  he  becomes  an  integral  part  of  a  spiritless 
group,  —  the  Teased  and  the  Teaser.  The  exact  mean- 
ing of  the  upraised  right  arm  of  Hermes  cannot  be 
determined,  but  we  may  feel  sure  that  it  too  was  cal- 
culated to  enhance  the  thought  of  the  composition 
Hermes  the  Dreamer. 

By  far  the  most  famous  of  the  Praxitelean  statues  in 
antiquity  was  the  Aphrodite  of  Knidos.  From  all  over 
the  world,  Pliny  says,  people  came  to  see  her;  and  so 
great  was  her  fame  that,  though  many  other  beautiful 
statues  were  in  Knidos,  their  very  names  were  forgot- 
ten over  the  attention  paid  to  the  Aphrodite.  Kings 
offered  to  buy  her,  ordinary  mortals  fell  in  love  with 
her,  and  poem  after  poem  was  written  vainly  endeavor- 
ing to  express  her  wonderful  charms.  None  of  the 
extant  copies  even  attempts  to  do  this,  so  that  the 
best  —  a  statue  in  the  Vatican,  which  to  judge  from 
ancient  coins  and  descriptions  reproduces  the  general 
masses  and  outlines  of  the  figure  fairly  well  —  is  singu- 
larly unable  to  give  as  much  as  an  idea  of  the  beautiful 
finish  of  the  nude,  which  was  the  great  force  of  Prax- 
iteles. The  modern  student  is  still  further  inconven- 
ienced by  a  tin  garment,  painted  white,  with  which  a 
mistaken  sense  of  propriety  has  clothed  the  figure, 
PI.  XXIX,  Fig.  2.  Only  once  the  tin  was  temporarily 
removed  for  the  making  of  a  mold,  a  view  of  a  cast 
from  which  is  given  in  our  illustration,  PI.  XXVIII, 
Fig.  2. 


KNIDIAN  APHRODITE  277 

Aphrodite,  housed  in  an  half-open  shrine  on  the  coast 
of  Knidos,  has  prepared  for  a  bath.  Her  eyes  are  scan- 
ning her  native  element,  the  sea.  The  charm  of  this 
view  makes  her  forget  her  immediate  purpose  and  causes 
her  to  tighten  her  fingers  on  the  garment  which  she  was 
ready  to  drop  on  the  urn  at  her  side.  In  the  reproduc- 
tion of  this  garment  the  copyist  has  been  very  unsuc- 
cessful. To  him  it  was  but  the  material  support  of  the 
statue;  the  pliableness  of  the  cloth,  therefore,  has  van- 
ished before  the  consistence  and  heaviness  of  the  stone. 
One  has  only  to  compare  this  garment  with  the  cloak 
of  Hermes,  or  better  still  with  the  shawl  in  the  hands  of 
a  woman  from  Ephesos,  PL  XXXI,  Fig.  2,  to  appreciate 
the  inadequacy  of  the  Vatican  reproduction.  The  figure 
from  Ephesos  is  in  relief  on  the  drum  of  a  column,  now 
in  the  British  Museum,  and  is  by  some,  on  doubtful  evi- 
dence, assigned  to  Skopas.  The  part  of  the  garment 
which  the  woman  holds  up  is  so  light  and  airy  that  the 
peculiar  coherence  of  the  marble  is  forgotten.  One 
receives  the  impression  of  an  actual  piece  of  cloth:  let 
the  woman  open  her  hand  and  the  shawl  will  fall  down 
and  trail  at  her  side.  What  has  been  accomplished 
here  was  doubtless  also  done  by  Praxiteles,  only  with 
even  greater  perfection.  The  garment  of  Aphrodite  was 
held  up  not  by  its  own  massiveness  but  by  the  momen- 
tarily suspended  activity  of  the  absent-minded  goddess. 

The  head  of  the  statue,  broken  off,  has  received  a 
wrong  tilt  in  the  restoration.    It  is  not  a  good  piece  of 


278 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


sculpture  at  that,  decidedly  inferior  to  another  head  of 
the  same  type  in  the  Kaufmann  collection  in  Berlin, 
PI.  XXXIX,  Fig.  I,  and  PI.  XL,  Fig.  3.  The  beauty  of 
this  Berlin  Aphrodite  is  so  great  that  it  gives  one  a 
far  better  introduction  to  the  art  of  Praxiteles  than  did 
the  complete  statue  in  the  Vatican.  Her  eyes  are  her 
strongest  point.  With  their  peculiarly  dreamy  senti- 
mentalism,  or,  as  the  ancients  called  it,  moistness,  soft- 
ness, they  immediately  appeal  to  the  spectator,  whom 
they  hold  under  a  powerful  spell. 

In  almost  all  the  statues  of  Praxiteles,  whether  we 
know  them  through  copies  or  only  through  descrip- 
tions (about  fifty  are  mentioned  in  ancient  literature), 
we  find  the  same  musing  stillness.  Ease  of  mind  is 
coupled  with  repose  of  body;  there  is  no  struggle,  no 
despair,  not  even  an  indication  of  restlessness  on  the 
part  of  the  spirit  at  being  tied  down  to  matter.  Per- 
fect peace  is  the  keynote  of  the  work  of  Praxiteles.  He 
accepts  the  existing  order  of  things  as  cheerfully  as  we 
all  do  when  we  view  them  under  bright  sunlight  and 
with  eyes  of  love.  But  the  sun  does  not  always  shine, 
and  the  time  comes  when  we  must  face  the  wild  discord 
between  mind  and  matter.  When  men  are  swayed  by 
passion  and  the  height  of  their  emotion  finds  an  outlet 
in  the  violence  of  their  bodies,  it  is  soon  spent.  But 
when  the  will  controls  their  limbs,  and  the  pent-up 
excitement  shows  only  in  the  eyes  and  the  hard- 
breathing  mouth,  or  in  the  heaving  breast,  then  the 


SKOPAS 


279 


storm  is  at  its  height  and  altogether  beyond  the  power 
of  expression  by  ordinary  men.  Such  scenes,  it  seems, 
appealed  to  the  restless  vagrant  master  of  sculpture, — 
to  Skopas. 

Skopas 

A  man  without  a  settled  home,  working  here  and 
there,  he  seems  to  have  taken  keen  delight  in  express- 
ing what  he  himself  may  often  have  felt.  We  know  too 
little  of  him  to  be  sure  on  this  point,  but  the  presump- 
tion both  from  external  and  internal  evidence  is  in  its 
favor.  Copyists  were  singularly  unable  to  reproduce 
his  work ;  they  knew  how  to  retain  the  general  outlines 
of  a  figure,  but  did  not  do  justice  to  the  fierceness  of 
flashing  eyes.  This  is  the  reason  why  no  indubitably 
Skopasian  works  are  known  to-day.  The  first  accurate 
glimpse  of  his  art  was  had  from  two  heads  which  were 
discovered  some  forty  years  ago  in  Tegea,  and  may 
be  by  him.  They  are  poorly  preserved,  and  of  such  a 
largeness  of  treatment,  because  intended  for  the  high 
pediment  of  the  temple  which  he  built,  that  they  are 
unsatisfactory  for  close  inspection.  By  their  means, 
however,  some  other  statues  have  been  attributed 
to  him,  and  among  them,  as  the  most  important,  a 
Meleager.  This  statue  is  known  in  several  copies  of 
varying  excellence.  A  head  in  the  Villa  Medici  is 
famous  for  its  impressive  beauty,  a  torso  in  Berlin  for 
its  delicacy  of  treatment,  and  an  inferior  statue  in  the 


28o 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Vatican,  PL  ,XXX,  Fig.  2,  for  its  almost  perfect  state 
of  preservation.  All  these  copies,  however,  are  far  sur- 
passed in  beauty  by  a  Meleager  excavated  in  1895 
San  Marinella  near  Rome,  and  deposited  as  an  indefi- 
nite loan  in  the  Fogg  Museum  of  Harvard  University 
by  Miss  Forbes,  PI.  XXX,  Fig.  i.  Both  legs  and  both 
arms  are  broken,  and  although  substantial  fragments 
have  been  found,  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  restore 
them.    Among  the  fragments  is  a  most  exquisite  knee. 

Meleager  is  the  Greek  hero  of  the  hunt.  In  one  of 
the  Tegea  pediments  he  was  represented  as  fighting 
the  Kalydonian  boar.  Here  the  fight  is  over.  With 
his  short  hunting  spear  at  his  side  and  his  right  hand 
on  his  back,  the  hero  stands  seemingly  at  rest ;  but  his 
mind  is  actively  at  work.  The  parted  lips  and  the  intent 
gaze  of  the  eyes  reveal  the  contrast  between  the  quiet 
outlines  of  his  body  and  his  restless  mind.  The  eyes, 
by  a  multitude  of  devices,  have  been  sunk  in  mysterious 
depths  of  shadows.  The  eyebrows  and  the  surrounding 
muscles  are  very  prominent ;  the  eyelids  project  beyond 
the  balls,  and  these  latter  are  actually  undercut,  thereby 
producing  one  more  dark  line  which  the  gaze  of  the 
eyes  has  to  penetrate.  The  same  device  of  undercut- 
ting has  been  resorted  to  in  the  mouth.  Back  of  the 
lips  the  rows  of  teeth  appear,  and  back  of  them  a 
groove  marks  one  deep  plane  of  utter  darkness.  These 
carefully  wrought  eyes  and  this  mouth  make  Meleager 
live  and  think  before  one.    Let  one  replace  them  by 


HARVARD  MELEAGER 


281 


an  ordinary  mouth  and  by  conventional  eyes,  and  the 
entire  statue  sinks  back,  as  does  the  Vatican  copy,  to 
the  commonplace. 

In  spite  of  some  scratches  and  abrasions  the  Harvard 
Meleager  shows  a  delicacy  of  modeling  which  is  hardly 
surpassed  by  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles.  To  run  one's 
finger  tips  over  the  body  gives  one  the  sense  of  touch- 
ing actual  epidermis  and  of  feeling  the  blood  course 
under  the  skin.  The  modeling  of  the  left  shoulder  is 
especially  sympathetic;  as  in  nature,  one  can  feel  and 
see  the  shape  of  the  shoulder  blade  beneath  the  bolster 
of  muscles  and  fat.  Side  by  side  with  this  excellence 
there  are  a  few  signs  of  carelessness  in  workmanship 
which  conclusively  disprove  the  authorship  of  Skopas 
himself,  or  any  other  original  creator  of  the  Meleager 
type.  The  left  cheek  is  perfect,  but  the  right  cheek 
is  cold,  lifeless,  stony;  the  left  shoulder  is  full  of  the 
most  delicate  modulations,  while  parts  of  the  arm  below 
it  are  very  ordinary.  Such  partial  poverty  of  execution 
is  incredible  of  the  man  who  conceived  the  beautiful 
statue,  and  thus  seems  to  point  to  a  later  adapter.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  many  supports,  attachments  for  eight 
of  which  can  be  noted  in  different  places,  and  of  the 
use  of  the  grooved  drill  for  the  demarcation  line  of  the 
legs  near  the  abdomen. 

The  pose  of  the  Harvard  Meleager  has  erroneously 
been  compared  with  that  of  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles. 
The  place  of  the  tree  trunk  of  the  Hermes,  it  has  been 


282 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


said,  is  here  taken  by  the  spear  on  which  the  hero  is 
leaning.  Such  a  view  is  untenable.  No  one  can  rest 
his  body  on  the  pointed  end  of  a  spear;  and  it  is  the 
pointed  end  which  is  still  seen  between  the  left  side 
and  the  arm.  The  spear,  moreover,  does  not  reach  up 
to  the  highest  point  of  the  armpit,  where  it  would  have 
to  be  if  it  were  to  serve  as  a  support.  The  apparent 
correspondence  in  the  attitude  of  the  two  figures,  there- 
fore, is  rather  an  indication  of  fundamental  difference 
than  of  similarity.  The  lines  of  the  body  of  the  Hermes, 
half  supported  by  the  tree,  suggest  complete  rest,  while 
those  of  the  Meleager,  entirely  unsupported  from  the 
outside,  are  not  restful.  The  pose,  far  from  being  an 
easy  one,  is  indicative  of  high  nervous  tension.  It  sup- 
plements, therefore,  the  impression  of  an  active  mind 
conveyed  by  the  face. 

A  worthy  companion  piece  to  the  Meleager  is  the 
head  of  a  woman  found  in  1876  on  the  southern  slope 
of  the  Akropolis,  PI.  XXXIX,  Fig.  3.  The  appealing  tilt 
of  the  head  and  the  eager  gaze  of  the  deep-set  eyes, 
together  with  the  half-open  mouth  and  the  fine  finish 
of  the  cheeks  and  neck,  make  it  one  of  the  most  beau- 
tiful heads  in  existence  in  spite  of  its  disfigured  nose. 
We  seem  to  feel  the  calm  resignation  of  a  passionate 
spirit  under  trying  circumstances. 

Even  grander  in  conception  is  the  so-called  Mater 
Dolorosa  of  antiquity  [Frontispiece],  a  seated  figure 
from  Knidos.    She  may  be  Demeter,  whose  daughter 


THE  NIOBE  GROUP  283 

Persephone  was  compelled  to  spend  six  months  of  every 
year  away  from  her.  The  body  of  this  Demeter  i^ 
poorly  preserved,  but  her  head,  which  was  carved  of 
better  marble,  has  retained  all  its  original  charm.  In 
the  peaceful  beauty  of  the  face  one  may  perhaps  see  a 
reminder  of  Praxiteles,  while  the  intent  gaze  of  the 
shadowed  eyes  seems  to  recall  the  art  of  Skopas. 

The  Niobe  Group 

Such  a  mingling  of  Praxitelean  and  Skopasian  ten- 
dencies need  not  surprise  us.  It  was  not  uncommon  in 
the  generations  following  these  men,  and  is  perhaps  seen 
at  its  best  in  an  extensive  group  representing  the  sor- 
rows of  Niobe.  Pliny  said  of  this  group,  that  it  was  not 
known  whether  it  was  made  by  Praxiteles  or  by  Skopas. 
Perhaps  neither  of  them  was  directly  responsible  for  it, 
and  a  third  man,  now  unknown,  who  had  imbibed  much 
of  the  art  tendencies  of  both,  carved  it.  Most  of  the 
figures  of  this  group  are  extant  only  in  poor  copies  in 
Florence.  A  splendid  head  of  Niobe,  however,  in  private 
possession  in  England,  and  the  torso  of  one  of  her  daugh- 
ters in  the  Vatican,  enable  one  to  imagine  the  excellence 
of  the  composition,  in  spite  of  its  inferior  reproduction. 

The  two  gods,  Artemis  and  Apollo,  who  are  taking 
vengeance  on  Niobe  for  her  overbearing  behavior 
toward  their  mother  Leto,  are  not  represented.  The 
flying  arrows  are  more  unerring  since  we  do  not  know 
whence  they  come.    On  later  sarcophagi  both  Artemis 


284 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


and  Apollo  are  often  carved.  Their  presence  lessens 
the  conception  of  divine  wrath  wreaking  its  vengeance 
on  helpless  mortals,  and  reveals  the  wisdom  of  the 
maker  of  our  group. 

Many  touches  of  deep  human  feeling  he  has  intro- 
duced,— as  when  a  sister  flees  for  refuge  to  her  brother, 
PI.  XL,  Fig.  I,  and  he  forgetful  of  self  pulls  his  robes 
to  shield  her,  not  knowing  that  the  god  has  already- 
killed  the  girl  and  that  she  has  fallen  dead  on  his  knee ; 
or  when  Niobe,  with  her  youngest  daughter  in  her  lap, 
PI.  XXXI,  Fig.  I,  turns  a  beseeching  look  to  heaven  as 
if  to  say,  "  Spare  her !  kill  me,  but  do  not  harm  my  girl." 
The  gods,  however,  are  implacable;  there  is  no  escape 
from  them.  "  Whither  shall  I  flee  to  escape  destruc- 
tion ? "  seems  to  be  the  cry  of  the  daughter  who  is  best 
preserved  in  the  Chiaramonti  collection  in  the  Vatican, 
PI.  XIX,  Fig.  I.  The  deep  gulfing  folds  of  her  gar- 
ment show  the  rapidity  of  her  onward  movement,  the 
curving  lines  of  her  fluttering  shawl  tell  of  the  uncer- 
tainty of  her  direction.  Hither  and  thither  she  turns; 
soon,  however,  she  too  will  be  struck  down,  and  lie  at 
the  side  of  her  dead  brothers.  But  she  does  not  want 
to  die;  she  wants  to  live.  Her  youthful  breast  and 
her  beautiful  body  seem  made  for  a  long  enjoyment 
of  earthly  happiness.  Her  head  is  gone,  yet  so  unmis- 
takably has  her  character  and  her  state  of  mind  been 
revealed  in  her  body  that  we  scarcely  miss  it.  We  are 
almost  glad  that  it  is  gone,  for  the  storm  of  passion  runs 


THE  TOMB  OF  KING  MAUSSOLOS  285 

SO  high  that  we  do  not  know  how  the  face  could  express 
its  proper  share  of  it  and  at  the  same  time  retain  the 
beauty  of  a  noble  countenance. 

Niobe  herself  is  suffering  the  punishment  which  her 
overbearing  character  deserves.  Her  children,  however, 
are  guiltless,  and  the  fate  they  meet  is  the  harder  to  bear 
the  less  it  is  merited.  Perhaps  nowhere  in  Greek  sculp- 
ture has  the  dramatic  pathos  of  human  agony  been  more 
vividly  portrayed  than  in  this  group.  We  seem  to  feel 
what  every  one  of  the  Niobids  is  suffering  in  mind  and 
body,  and  are  thus  brought  in  close  contact  with  every 
single  individual.  The  date  of  this  group  is  uncertain. 
Some  scholars  assign  it  to  a  late  period  because  of  its 
dramatic  interest,  others  to  the  fourth  century  on  the 
strength  of  Pliny's  statement.  One  thing  is  sure:  the 
Niobids  could  not  have  been  made  before  Praxiteles 
and  Skopas  had  taught  the  expression  of  the  individual 
and  his  momentary  states  of  mind. 

The  Tomb  of  King  Maussolos 

The  names  of  these  two  great  sculptors  were  once 
more,  probably  erroneously,  coupled  in  connection  with 
the  tomb  of  King  Maussolos  of  Caria,  who  died  in 
351  B.C.  Together  with  several  other  artists,  Praxiteles 
and  Skopas  are  said  to  have  been  summoned  to  Asia 
Minor  by  Artemisia,  the  widow  of  the  king,  who  wished 
to  erect  in  his  honor  a  grave  monument  of  such  splen- 
dor that  it  should  surpass  the  most  beautiful  tombs  of 


286 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Greece  and  of  Asia.  She  succeeded  so  well  that  to 
this  day  every  unusually  fine  sepulchral  structure  is 
called  a  "mausoleum."  The  original  mausoleum  has 
disappeared,  and  only  fragments  of  its  sculptured  and 
architectural  decoration  are  preserved.  All  the  sculp- 
tures exhibit,  in  spite  of  uneven  workmanship,  intensity 
of  feeling  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  character  delineation. 

On  one  slab,  PI.  XXXII,  Fig.  i,  an  Amazon  is  on  her 
knees,  begging  for  mercy  with  outstretched  arm.  The 
Greek,  who  is  ready  to  deal  her  a  blow,  seems  to  be 
seized  with  pity.  His  compassion  will  cost  him  dear, 
for  another  Amazon  is  bearing  down  upon  him.  Mercy 
she  knows  not ;  she  will  strike  him,  and  her  blow  will  be 
fierce,  because  he  has  been  the  recipient  of  supplica- 
tions from  her  sister.  There  is  cruelty  in  the  clear-cut 
lines  of  her  masculine  body,  in  keeping  with  the  tradi- 
tional Amazon  character,  and  in  this  case  partaking  of 
wrathful  indignation  at  a  sister's  weakness. 

On  another  slab,  PI.  XXXII,  Fig.  2,  a  splendid  figure 
is  fury-like  driving  a  Greek  to  the  corner.  Escape  is 
impossible,  and  so  he  falls  back,  cowering  and  vainly 
endeavoring  to  ward  off  the  blow  with  his  shield.  On 
both  these  slabs  the  spaciousness  of  the  composition  is 
remarkable;  the  artist  has  discarded  the  idea  of  filling 
every  available  space.  The  sweeping  lines  of  the  bodies, 
bent  to  their  utmost,  are  wonderfully  expressive.  Com- 
pared with  earlier  works  of  art  nothing  could  show  a 
greater  contrast  than  the  recoiling  Greek  on  one  of 


Maussolos 
(British  Museum) 


STATUE  OF  MAUSSOLOS  287 

these  slabs  and  the  Marsyas  of  Myron,  PL  X,  Fig.  2. 
Before  the  intensity  of  passionate  representation  the 
value  of  reserved  force  has  disappeared.  The  best  of 
the  figures  of  this  Amazon  frieze  exhibit  also  marvel- 
ous skill  in  the  treatment  both  of  the  nude  and  the 
drapery,  page  46;  while  the  lovableness  of  some  of  the 
Amazons  increases  the  sense  of  cruelty  with  which 
the  others  impress  one. 

Very  different  in  subject,  though  similar  in  passion- 
ate feeling,  are  the  charioteers  of  a  smaller  frieze  from 
the  same  building.  Professor  Gardner  describes  one 
of  them,  PI.  XXV,  Fig.  i,  by  quoting  these  lines  from 
Shelley. 

Others,  with  burning  eyes,  lean  forth,  and  drink 
With  eager  lips  the  wind  of  their  own  speed, 
As  if  the  thing  they  loved  fled  on  before, 
And  now,  even  now,  they  clasped  it. 

Somewhere  in  or  on  the  tomb  of  Maussolos  there 
stood  the  statues  of  the  king,  page  286,  and  his  wife. 
Every  inch  a  king,  he  stands  before  us;  not  a  Greek, 
but  none  the  less  a  noble  personage.  A  barbarian,  to  be 
sure,  but  a  dignified  individual.  His  statue  was  badly 
broken,  and  had  to  be  put  together  from  sixty-three 
fragments.  The  statue  of  Artemisia  is  even  less  well 
preserved;  her  face  is  lost,  but  has  been  successfully 
restored,  in  the  cast,  by  the  American  sculptor  Story. 

One  of  the  later  creations  which  show  strong  Skopa- 
sian  influences,  especially  in  the  treatment  of  the  faces, 


288 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


is  the  so-called  Alexander  Sarcophagus,  PI.  XXXIII, 
Fig.  I,  in  Constantinople.  Aside  from  the  powerful 
impressions  made  by  the  eager  hunters  and  merciless 
fighters,  PI.  XXXIV,  Figs.  1-3,  the  sarcophagus  holds  a 
unique  place  among  ancient  monuments,  because  it  has 
preserved  to  an  unprecedented  extent  its  original  colors. 
The  aesthetic  enjoyment  of  the  monument,  it  is  true,  is 
somewhat  restricted,  owing  to  the  fact  that  some  colors 
have  faded  while  others  are  still  bright;  as  an  archaeo- 
logical treasure,  however,  and  as  an  argument  in  favor 
of  the  theory  of  the  painting  of  ancient  sculpture,  this 
sarcophagus  ranks  second  to  none. 

In  taking  one  more  survey  of  the  sculptures  which 
group  themselves  about  these  two  men,  Skopas  and 
Praxiteles,  one  sees  how  the  individual  in  every  instance 
has  stepped  into  his  rights,  and  how  it  is  the  momen- 
tary expression  of  his  character  which  has  supplied  the 
motive  of  the  composition.  Though  momentary,  this 
expression  is  not  accidental;  it  is  deeply  rooted  in  the 
essential  character  of  the  person  portrayed.  If  it  were 
not  so,  its  representation  would  fail  to  please;  for  the 
momentary  in  sculpture  is  permissible  only  if  it  admits 
of  conclusions  to  be  drawn  as  to  the  eternal  and 
unchangeable.  It  is  the  application  of  the  pars  pro 
toto  in  sculpture.  Hermes  forgets  Dionysos  and  goes 
off  into  dreams;  Meleager  has  the  opportunity  for  rest 
and  does  not  rest;  Demeter  is  longing  for  her  daughter; 


AVOIDANCE  OF  THE  ACCIDENTAL  289 

and  the  Amazon  is  ready  to  avenge  her  sister's  weak- 
ness, —  not  because  once  in  the  experiences  of  their  Hves 
there  was  an  occasion  for  such  an  action  or  lack  of 
action,  but  because  all  these  people  are  so  constituted 
that  such  a  behavior  is  to  be  expected  of  them  always, 
or  better  still  because  they  are  apt  to  create  such  con- 
ditions for  themselves  constantly.  It  is  because  of  this 
intimate  relationship  between  the  momentary  and  the 
eternal,  and  because  of  the  studious,  though  seemingly 
unconscious,  avoidance  of  the  accidental,  that  the  art 
both  of  Praxiteles  and  of  Skopas  is  far  removed  from  the 
trivial  and  the  commonplace.  Nothing  can  be  simpler 
than  the  motive  of  the  little  "  Marble  Faun " ;  nothing, 
on  the  other  hand,  more  indicative  of  the  master's 
mind  than  the  perfect  correspondence  of  the  satyr's 
momentary  state  of  mind  and  his  real  character. 

Praxiteles  and  Skopas  have  left  no  records  of  their 
views  of  art,  and  although  their  works  exhibit  many 
of  the  principles  which  their  great  successor  Lysippos 
formulated  in  a  definite  code,  one  loves  to  think  that 
the  wise  selections  of  both  men  were  matters  of  instinct 
rather  than  of  intellect. 


CHAPTER  XXII 


FORMULATED  PRINCIPLES;  PERFECT  SKILL 

The  names  of  great  men  are  like  magnets,  —  they 
gather  about  them  works  and  sayings  of  friends  and 
pupils;  and  after  some  centuries  it  has  become  impos- 
sible to  distinguish  what  properly  belongs  to  them  and 
what  tradition  has  added.  The  biographer  is  much 
inconvenienced  by  such  a  state  of  affairs :  the  art  critic 
can  view  it  with  complaisance,  for  he  cares  less  for 
the  individual  who  first  gives  expression  to  a  definite 
thought  than  for  the  thought  and  the  time  when  it 
makes  its  appearance.  It  may  sound  like  a  paradox, 
but  it  is  a  fact,  that  a  truth  is  rarely  formulated  while 
it  continues  to  be  an  active  force,  and  never  at  the 
beginning  of  its  career.  Toward  the  end  of  its  period 
of  influence,  when  it  is  threatened  with  extinction,  the 
man  is  apt  to  appear  who,  looking  back  over  the  past, 
discerns  more  clearly  than  any  one  before  the  essential 
principles  which  have  guided  his  predecessors.  He 
expresses  them,  and  by  so  doing  preserves  the  image 
of  this  dying  force  for  posterity. 

Almost  all  the  sayings  accredited  to  Lysippos  must 

be  explained  in  this  light.   They  are  convincing  only  if 

thus  understood.    "  The  principle  of  my  art,"  Lysippos 

290 


FORMULATED  PRINCIPLES 


291 


said,  "is  to  represent  things  as  they  appear  to  be." 
What  true  Greek  of  the  past  three  centuries  would 
not  cheerfully  have  subscribed  to  this  creed?  —  except 
perhaps  Polykleitos.  As  a  fling  at  him  Lysippos  seems 
to  have  added,  "  and  not  as  they  really  are,  as  my  prede- 
cessors did."  Pliny,  who  preserves  this  statement, 
makes  Lysippos  place  himself  in  opposition  to  all  the 
older  sculptors,  but  this  is  obviously  a  mistake.  No 
one  ever  wrought  figures  more  carefully  "as  they  ap- 
pear to  be  "  than  the  sculptors  of  the  Parthenon  frieze. 
Lysippos,  however,  who  belonged  to  the  school  of  Argos 
and  Sikyon  which  Polykleitos  had  brought  into  promi- 
nence, doubtless  directed  the  last  part  of  the  above 
statement  against  his  immediate  and  more  local  prede- 
cessors. Almost  a  century  before  Lysippos  it  was  said 
of  the  great  tragedian  Euripides  that  he  represented  his 
characters  as  they  were,  while  others  had  drawn  them 
as  they  ought  to  be.  The  similarity  of  these  state- 
ments alone  would  suffice  to  show  that  Lysippos  did 
not  lay  down  new  principles,  but  simply  put  into  words 
what  had  been  the  guiding  spirit  of  the  best  works  for 
generations.  The  conclusive  proof,  of  course,  is  found 
in  the  extant  monuments. 

Another  statement  in  regard  to  Lysippos  is  that  he 
was  as  great  in  constantia  as  in  elegantia.  The  trans- 
lation and  interpretation  of  these  words  have  given 
no  end  of  trouble  to  modern  scholars.  They  have 
looked  for  new  principles  which  he  formulated  and 


292 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


which  distinguished  him  from  his  predecessors,  instead 
of  realizing  that  here  again  we  have  probably  nothing 
but  the  attempt  at  putting  into  words  the  guiding  prin- 
ciples of  the  past.  The  difficulty  is,  of  course,  some- 
what increased  by  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  Greek 
words  which  are  rendered  by  the  Latin  constantia  and 
elegantia.  The  application  of  elegantia  to  the  outer 
form  of  a  statue,  that  is  to  its  appearance,  is  almost 
self-evident;  and  since  the  two  Latin  terms  are  con- 
trasted, there  is  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of 
referring  constantia  to  what  in  literary  criticism  is 
sometimes  called  the  "inner  form."  By  inner  form  is 
meant  the  perfect  agreement  of  the  thought  with  the 
particular  mode  selected  for  its  expression.  In  poetry, 
as  is  well  known,  there  are  subjects  which  are  best 
treated  in  an  epic  poem,  and  others  which  just  as 
certainly  demand  a  lyric  expression.  The  outer  form 
of  the  epic  or  the  lyric  may  be  perfect,  may  exhibit 
elegantia,  but  unless  it  is  the  natural  vehicle  of  the 
particular  thought  it  is  lacking  in  "inner  form,"  con- 
stantia, and  is  unsatisfactory  as  a  work  of  art.  The 
same  is  true  of  sculpture.  It  is  not  enough  to  give  to  a 
statue  a  symmetrical  outline  and  pleasing  finish,  that  is 
elegantia;  the  whole  statue  must  be  the  natural  expres- 
sion of  the  thought  which  it  is  intended  to  convey. 
The  outer  and  the  inner  form  must  "hang  together," 
or,  as  the  ancients  would  have  put  it,  "  stand  together " 
{constare,  constantia).   The  Latin  passage  thus  explained 


PORTRAITS  OF  ALEXANDER  293 

is  seen  to  have  no  reference  to  new  discoveries  by 
Lysippos,  but  to  contain  a  clear  statement  of  principles 
characteristic  of  all  the  best  Greek  art,  and  most  espe- 
cially of  Skopas  and  of  Praxiteles.  The  importance  of 
the  principle  of  the  outer  and  the  inner  form  is  readily 
comprehended  when  once  pointed  out,  and  the  neglect 
of  it  is  without  doubt  responsible  for  many  unsuccessful 
pieces  of  sculpture  both  later  Greek  and  modern. 

The  work  of  Lysippos  which  best  shows  his  adher- 
ence to  this  principle  is  his  portrait  of  Alexander  the 
Great.  Alexander  was  afflicted  with  a  stiff  neck.  The 
muscles  of  one  side  were  shorter  than  those  of  the  other, 
making  it  necessary  for  him  always  to  tilt  his  head.  In 
actual  life,  it  seems,  this  defect  passed  almost  unnoticed 
before  the  dazzling  vivacity  of  the  king,  but  to  most 
sculptors  it  proved  an  unsurmountable  obstacle.  Lysip- 
pos, however,  made  good  use  of  it,  and  converted  it 
into  a  most  telling  device  for  the  expression  of  the 
king's  character.  Alexander  was  overbearing  and  proud 
of  his  position  and  achievements,  and  Lysippos  repre- 
sented him  with  a  sidelong  look  to  heaven,  by  which  he 
seemed  to  be  addressing  Zeus,  with  these  words  of  a 
Greek  poet. 

The  world  by  might  is  mine,  Zeus, 
Olympos  keep  for  thyself. 

This  same  look  also  required  the  representation  of  eyes 
natural  to  Alexander  at  all  times,  but  in  an  ordinary 
bust  out  of  place,  —  eyes  focused  as  into  the  distance 


294 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


and  exhibiting  the  moist  sentimentality  peculiar  to  them. 
Alexander  was  so  delighted  with  the  work  of  Lysippos 
that  he  appointed  him  his  court  sculptor,  and  refused 
the  right  to  carve  his  likeness  to  all  others.  Of  the 
extant  Alexander  busts  none,  unfortunately,  is  above  the 
commonplace.  The  tilted  head  and  the  king's  shaggy 
mane  are  seen,  but  the  telling  eyes  are  lost.  It  is  in 
fact  not  even  definitely  known  that  any  of  the  copies 
reproduce  the  work  of  Lysippos,  for  in  spite  of  Alex- 
ander's prohibition  portraits  of  him  are  also  mentioned 
by  other  sculptors. 

Of  complete  statues  of  Alexander  only  three  of  impor- 
tance are  known  to-day,  —  one  in  the  Louvre,  one  in 
Munich,  and  one  in  Constantinople,  formerly  called 
Apollo.  All  are  inferior  copies  (two  of  them  much 
restored),  and  all  have  preserved  little  except  the  gen- 
eral lines  of  the  original.  The  statue  in  Munich  shows 
the  king  with  his  right  leg  raised  on  a  stone,  as  the 
restorer  has  it,  or  on  a  helmet  in  the  act  of  putting  on 
his  greaves,  as  has  been  suggested  by  Lange,  who  sees 
a  characteristically  Lysippean  motive  in  the  raised  leg. 
It  is  a  pose  which  from  now  on  enters  largely  into  Greek 
statuary,  and  is  for  Poseidon,  whom  Lysippos  represented 
with  preference,  almost  characteristic.  With  one  foot  on 
a  rock  the  god  pulls  himself  up  tall  and  straight  to  pound 
the  ground  with  his  trident.  But  even  this  posture  is 
nothing  new  with  Lysippos ;  it  is  the  conscious  adapta- 
tion of  a  design  found  more  than  once  in  the  Parthenon 


LYSIPPEAN  DIMENSIONS  295 

frieze,  in  groups  where  the  stepping  stones  are  taking 
the  place  of  the  modern  stirrups. 

Thus  far  we  have  met  Lysippos  only  as  the  clever 
interpreter  of  past  achievements ;  in  one  direction,  how- 
ever, he  made  a  distinct  contribution  to  art.  This  he 
did  not  so  much  as  the  successor  of  Skopas  and  Prax- 
iteles as  in  his  capacity  as  head  of  the  Argive  school. 
The  Polykleitean  dimensions  had  continued  in  force  in 
spite  of  the  changes  which  several  intervening  sculptors 
had  endeavored,  with  little  success,  to  introduce.  Their 
failure  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  they  had  shrunk 
from  abandoning  the  general  ratio  given  by  Polykleitos. 
Euphranor,  we  are  told,  kept  the  Argive  dimensions 
of  the  head  and  the  joints,  making  only  the  body  less 
heavy.  The  result  was  unpleasant,  because  the  head 
and  joints  of  his  statues  appeared  disproportionately 
large.  Lysippos,  it  seems,  was  the  first  to  realize  the 
chief  faults  of  the  Polykleitean  Kanon,  which  repro- 
duced the  means,  as  it  were,  of  all  measures  offered  by 
nature,  without  noting  that  nature  herself  does  her  best 
only  occasionally.  A  satisfactory  system  of  propor- 
tions, if  based  on  nature,  is  only  possible  if  it  gives  the 
average  measurements  of  the  very  best  specimens  and 
refuses  to  pay  attention  to  the  majority  of  people  who 
fall  short  of  the  standard  of  beauty.  The  result  of  the 
labors  of  Lysippos  in  this  direction  was  an  entirely 
new  canon.  Compared  with  the  old  it  reveals  a  slender 
torso,  longer  arms  and  legs,  and  a  smaller  head,  only 


296  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

about  one  eighth  of  the  total  height  of  the  body.  A 
figure  based  upon  these  proportions  gives  one  the 
appearance  of  height  and  of  nobiHty,  as  is  seen  in  a 
statue  in  the  Vatican  Museum,  page  296,  representing 
an  athlete  scraping  himself  (Apoxyomenos).  We  know 
that  Lysippos  made  such  a  statue,  and  the  Vatican 
Apoxyomenos  is  considered  to  be  a  copy  of  his  work. 
The  fingers  of  the  right  hand  with  the  die,  the  toes, 
and  other  minor  parts  are  restored,  and  the  supports 
for  the  legs  and  the  arms  are  doubtless  additions  of 
the  sculptor  who  translated  the  original  bronze  into 
marble.  Not  larger  than  the  Doryphoros,  the  Apoxy- 
omenos gives  nevertheless  the  impression  of  a  much 
taller  man.  The  head  no  longer  adopts  thoughtlessly 
the  direction  of  the  leg  which  is  supporting  the  weight 
of  the  body;  and  the  entire  pose  is  one  far  removed 
from  that  limited  conception  of  the  early  artists  which 
still  supplied  the  motives  of  the  Polykleitean  statues. 
Notice  how  readily  the  Doryphoros  will  return  to  the 
primitive  position,  and  contrast  with  it  the  several  turns 
and  twists  of  the  body  and  the  limbs  which  are  neces- 
sary before  the  Apoxyomenos  can  be  imagined  as  stand- 
ing as  straight  and  erect  as  the  "Apollo"  of  Tenea. 
The  right  leg  has  moved  not  only  backwards  but  also 
sideways,  and  has  thus  occasioned  a  rearrangement  of 
the  muscles  which  is  as  gracefully  perfect  as  it  is  seem- 
ingly simple.  The  design  of  the  figure  implies,  on  the 
part  of  the  artist,  control  over  the  conception  of  a  body 


Apoxyomenos  (Vatican) 
After  Lysippos 


PERFECT  SKILL 


297 


of  three  dimensions  moving  in  limitless  space.  The  ease 
with  which  the  right  leg  may  be  imagined  moving  in  a 
circle  about  the  left  is  marvelous ;  while  the  satisfaction 
of  a  complete  view  of  the  statue,  PI.  XXIX,  Fig.  3,  when 
it  is  given  a  turn  on  a  revolving  base,  reveals  how  firm 
a  grasp  the  artist  had  of  the  truly  sculptural.  This 
Apoxyomenos  is,  if  one  is  permitted  to  stretch  the  term, 
the  first  real  statue  in  the  round.  It  is  the  culmination 
in  technique  of  the  endeavors  which  began  with  the 
earliest  "  Apollo  "  statues.  The  artist  who  carved  it  has 
mastered  the  technical  side  of  his  art;  nothing  is  left 
for  him  to  learn. 

This  fact  was  clearly  understood  by  all  the  ancients, 
and  is  universally  accepted  to-day.  After  Lysippos  the 
question,  What  can  the  sculptor  represent.'^  no  longer 
exists ;  it  is  only.  What  does  he  care  to  represent  t  Great 
skill  in  anything  is  a  dangerous  boon;  it  often  leads 
to  thoughtless  creations,  and  is  a  valuable  gift  only  to 
him  who  is  man  enough  to  feel  and  to  think  before  he 
sets  out  to  produce.  In  times  of  halting  skill  only  those 
people  are  apt  to  undergo  the  hardships  of  production 
who  feel  the  urgent  need  of  expressing  a  well-conceived 
thought.  With  ease  of  workmanship,  haste  or  lack  of 
thought  are  wont  to  make  their  appearance.  But  it 
must  not  be  believed  that  this  is  invariably  the  case; 
for  it  is  not  only  possible  but  also  recorded  in  history 
that  technical  skill  and  depth  of  personality  may  go 
hand  in  hand.    The  rapid  disintegration  of  national  and 


298 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


religious  ideas  in  Greece  after  the  death  of  Alexander 
the  Great  prevented  her  from  producing  a  Michelangelo, 
but  not  a  few  of  her  late  creations  are  comparable  to 
the  works  of  the  mighty  Florentine. 

Lysippos  and  his  immediate  followers  may  be  said  to 
have  reached  the  summit  of  the  mountain  which  the 
"Apollo"  artists  had  begun  to  climb.  The  belief  of 
many  that  after  Lysippos  the  downhill  journey  was 
immediately  begun  is  erroneous.  Art  broadened  on 
the  top  and  enjoyed  a  long  season  of  autumn  days. 
Occasionally  a  sculptor  came  dangerously  near  the 
precipice,  or  even  fell  to  the  bottom,  but  such  cases 
were  rare.  Perfection  had  been  won  with  too  much 
hard  labor  to  be  immediately  abandoned.  Lysippos 
may  mark  the  end  of  unconsciously  perfect  art.  The 
end  of  art  was  not  to  come  for  several  centuries. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

AUTUMN  DAYS 

After  working  and  waiting  come  rest  and  the  season 
of  enjoying.  Rest  for  the  healthy  man  is  not  inactivity. 
Not  even  the  idiot  finds  recreation  in  doing  nothing, 
Mr.  Bigelow  has  said.  Greek  artists  least  of  all  were 
satisfied  to  rest  on  the  triumphs  of  their  predecessors ; 
and  in  spite  of  the  much-abused  and  erroneous  state- 
ment of  Pliny  that  at  about  300  B.C.  art  had  come  to 
a  standstill,  the  creations  of  the  Greek  sculptors  con- 
tinued in  undiminished  quantity.  The  quality  of  their 
work  was  so  high  and  varied,  and  their  own  number 
so  large,  that  it  became  impracticable  to  group  even 
the  best  statues  around  a  few  famous  names.  Nor  was 
it  possible,  as  in  preceding  ages,  to  mark  strong  per- 
sonal characteristics  in  the  creations  of  any  one,  man 
or  school ;  for  all  partook  of  the  achievements  of  the 
masters  of  the  past.  A  leaning  toward  Praxiteles  in 
one  statue  might  be  offset  by  a  preference  for  Pheidias 
in  another  made  by  the  same  sculptor,  and  men  of 
widely  different  periods  might  be  drawn  to  the  imita- 
tion or  adaptation  of  the  identical  old  master.  It  is 
therefore  impossible  to-day  to  say  whether  a  statue  was 

carved  in  the  third  or  the  second  or  even  the  first 

299 


300 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


century  before  Christ.  The  intellectual  horizon  of  the 
sculptors  of  these  different  centuries  was  practically 
the  same,  and  with  sufficient  application  on  their  part 
there  was  no  reason  why  they  should  not  all  muster 
an  equal  amount  of  skill.  All  the  works,  therefore,  of 
the  autumn  days  of  Greek  sculpture  must  be  dis- 
cussed together  in  one  class.  It  is  true  that  a  few  of 
them  may  be  more  definitely  dated  by  means  of  inscrip- 
tions, literary  references,  and  historical  deductions,  but 
these  only  go  to  strengthen  the  above  conclusion. 

Indistinguishable  from  each  other,  the  works  of  this 
long  period  are  yet  readily  recognized  from  those  of  the 
preceding  centuries.  Statues  which  owe  their  origin 
to  mere  skill  of  hand,  without  pressing  into  use  either 
"heart"  or  "head"  or  both,  are  inconceivable  in  the 
time  of  Pheidias  and  of  Praxiteles.  And  even  the  truly 
great  works  of  this  period  possess  distinctly  new  quali- 
ties by  which  they  are  known,  and  which  not  only 
justify  the  name  given  to  this  age  but  also  refute  the 
theory  of  its  being  one  of  decadence.  There  is  a  sea- 
son of  the  year  when  the  ripe  fruit,  with  characteristic 
fullness,  commands  our  admiration,  and  the  variety  of 
changing  foliage  tries  to  crowd  from  our  memory  the 
pleasures  in  the  fresh  verdure  of  springing  buds.  It  is 
a  singularly  happy  season,  when  a  sense  of  joyful  stabil- 
ity is  felt  after  the  long  months  of  waiting  and  watching. 
The  light  blossom  of  the  spring  has  made  way  for  the 
red- cheeked  apple,  and  assurance  has  taken  the  place 


Aphrodite  of  Melos  (Louvre) 
Correct  view 


THE  APHRODITE  OF  MELOS  301 

of  faith  in  nature's  growing  powers.  Of  all  the  days  of 
the  year  none  are  more  self-sufHciently  beautiful  than 
the  crisp,  clear  autumn  days.  They  are  neither  full  of 
promise  for  the  future  nor  teeming  with  reminiscences  of 
the  past.  It  is  to  them  we  may  compare  the  best  works 
of  this  period;  for  they  exhibit  a  fullness  and  a  self- 
sufficiency  that  seem  to  deny  all  preparation  and  to 
carry  no  hint  of  the  hereafter.  A  sense  of  confidence 
marks  them  in  contrast  to  the  faith  that  can  remove 
mountains.  They  are,  in  the  truest  sense,  creations  of 
the  autumn  days  of  Greek  sculpture. 

The  Aphrodite  of  Melos 

One  of  the  most  generally  admired  statues  of  this 
period  is  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos,  more  widely  but 
lesi  properly  known  as  the  Venus  de  Milo,  page  300. 
Discovered  in  1820  in  a  cave  on  the  island  of  Melos, 
she  was  brought  to  Paris  as  a  present  to  the  king. 
Now  she  is  in  the  Louvre,  the  recipient  of  homage 
by  multitudes  of  visitors,  the  true  goddess  of  love; 
and  at  the  same  time,  in  the  second  role  of  her  well- 
known  character,  the  inspirer  of  feuds,  although  in  this 
case  only  among  scholars.  Who  made  her,  and  when  ? 
How  ought  she  to  be  restored  .^^  and  Who  is  she.f^ — 
these  questions  are  constantly  asked. 

Inscriptions  containing  the  name  of  a  sculptor  and 
fragments  said  to  have  been  found  in  the  same  cave 
are  urged  in  argument  by  some,  and  on  account  of 


302  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

their  doubtful  authenticity  rejected  by  others.  One 
man  is  struck  by  her  "  Lysippean  proportions  and  pose," 
another  by  her  "  Pheidian  drapery,"  and  still  another  by 
her  individual  expression.  All  admire  her  and  would 
assign  her  to  that  period  which  they  believe  the  best. 
As  long  as  the  autumn  days  of  Greek  sculpture  were 
considered  a  period  of  decadence,  there  was  no  place 
in  them  for  this  Aphrodite.  "  Let  us  put  her  in  the 
fourth  century,"  people  said;  but  they  came  to  grief. 
The  self-sufficient  grandeur  of  the  figure  finds  there  no 
parallel.  "  Well,  then,  back  to  the  fifth  century!"  they 
shouted;  and  when  everything  —  pose,  finish,  dimen- 
sions, expression  —  proved  the  inaccuracy  of  their  view, 
they  urged  a  superficial  resemblance  between  the  folds 
of  her  drapery  and  some  of  the  Parthenon  figures.  The 
folds  in  a  few  instances  are  not  dissimilar,  but  the 
garments  themselves  are  entirely  unlike.  The  slightest 
familiarity  with  Greek  costumes  shows  that  the  drapery 
of  the  Aphrodite  is  altogether  too  small  to  serve  as  an 
actual  garment.  It  is  suppressed  for  reasons  of  design, 
and  is  in  this  respect  very  different  from  the  draperies 
of  all  the  Parthenon  figures,  and  even  in  strong  and 
perhaps  conscious  contrast  to  the  Aphrodite  of  Aries, 
PI.  XXXV,  Fig.  2,  which  with  probability  is  assigned 
to  the  Praxitelean  cyclus.  The  correspondence  in  the 
treatment  of  folds,  therefore,  instead  of  pointing  to  the 
origin  of  this  statue  as  in  the  fifth  century,  argues  in 
favor  of  a  later  date,  when  men  with  perfect  freedom 


APHRODITE  RESTORED  303 

knew  how  to  adapt  and  how  to  combine  into  one  har- 
monious whole  the  pose  of  Lysippos,  the  charm  of 
Praxiteles,  and  a  bit  of  technique  from  the  Parthenon. 
The  only  time  when  this  was  possible  was,  of  course, 
the  Greek  autumn  days.  The  Aphrodite  is  the  fruit 
which  with  characteristic  completeness  drives  from  one's 
memory  past  pleasures  in  the  growing  efforts  of  nature. 

The  correct  restoration  of  this  figure  was  until  re- 
cently as  perplexing  as  its  attribution  to  a  definite 
period  used  to  be.  The  front  view  of  the  statue, 
PI.  XXXV,  Fig.  I,  is  the  one  most  generally  known.  It 
exhibits  the  beauty  of  Aphrodite's  right  side,  and  at  the 
same  time  shows  a  very  unpleasantly  straight  line  and 
impossible  hip  on  her  left.  This  has  led  people  to 
believe  that  Aphrodite  originally  was  coupled  with 
another  figure  whose  outer  contours  corresponded  to 
those  of  her  beautiful  right  side.  Several  figures  have 
been  suggested,  but  none  have  stood  the  test ;  the  most 
formidable  objection  to  all  of  them  being  the  fact  that 
Aphrodite  is  too  obviously  not  part  of  a  group  but  suf- 
ficient in  herself.  In  just  appreciation  of  this  fact  some 
scholars  have  suggested  a  column  or  a  tree  or  some 
other  object  at  her  side  to  complete  the  composition  on 
her  left.  It  is  difficult  to  think  of  any  such  object  the 
shape  of  which  would  not  be  unduly  prominent.  And 
yet  something,  it  is  reasoned,  must  have  been  on  this 
side,  if  for  no  other  reason  than  to  serve  as  a  support 
for  the  arms.    Both  arms  are  broken  away,  but  there  is 


304  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

not  a  single  place  of  attachment  on  the  whole  figure 
from  which  they  originally  could  have  been  supported. 
It  is  therefore  clear  that  they  were  attached  to  some 
outside  object,  for  being  of  marble  they  were  too  heavy 
to  do  without  any  stays.  The  position  of  the  left  arm 
is  altogether  problematic;  the  right  arm,  Mr.  Robinson 
has  proved,  crossed  the  body  at  a  right  angle,  with 
the  hand  held  downward.  Only  in  this  position  does 
the  biceps  of  the  upper  arm  press  closely  enough  to  the 
breast  to  make  that  little  muscle  appear  which  is  seen 
over  the  right  breast.  It  is  the  consideration  of  the 
arms  which  has  made  the  introduction  of  an  outside 
support  appear  to  be  even  more  necessary  than  the 
aesthetic  requirements  of  the  design. 

But  another  and  infinitely  simpler  solution  offers 
itself.  It  is  based  upon  the  appreciation  of  the  peculiar 
technique  of  the  figured,  which  is  not  completely  finished 
in  the  round,  but  of  excellence  only  on  the  right  side 
of  a  plane  erected  on  a  line  connecting  the  right  heel 
with  the  left  ankle.  A  view  of  the  figure  from  this 
side  (see  page  300)  is  of  surpassing  beauty.  The  un- 
pleasant straightness  of  the  left  disappears,  the  promi- 
nence of  the  right  hip  is  abated,  the  breasts  appear  to 
their  best  advantage,  and  the  noble  profile  of  the  face 
steps  into  its  rights,  while  the  arrangement  of  the  hair 
and  the  dainty  lock  on  the  back  of  the  head  are  seen 
for  the  first  time.  Suppose  this  was  the  view  intended 
by  the  artist,  who,  to  prevent  other  and  less  satisfactory 


DISPUTED  NAME  305 

views,  placed  his  figure  in  a  niche  or  at  least  close  to 
the  wall !  The  disposition  of  the  arms  becomes  then  a 
matter  of  no  difficulty,  for  the  background  offers  ample 
opportunities  for  invisible  places  of  attachment.  This 
solution  of  the  seemingly  hopeless  problem  of  restora- 
tion is  so  simple  that  one  wonders  at  its  not  having 
been  suggested  before.  It  has  certainly  never  before 
found  its  way  to  the  front,  although  it  is  the  only  one 
that  enables  one  to  appreciate  the  statue  to  its  full  extent 
without  relying  upon  outside  additions  to  supplement 
its  design. 

The  general  type  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos  has  been 
preserved  in  several  figures.  Draped  and  holding  the 
shield  in  the  museum  in  Brescia,  PI.  XXXV,  Fig.  4, 
she  is  called  Nike;  nude  and  with  outstretched  arms 
(restored)  in  Naples,  she  is  known  as  the  Venus  of 
Capua,  PI.  XXXV,  Fig.  3,  and  on  the  Arch  of  Trajan 
she  again  appears  as  Nike.  Reinach  believes  she  is 
not  an  Aphrodite  but  an  Amphitrite,  and  the  English 
sculptor  Westmacott  added  wings  to  her  and  folded  her 
hands  on  her  knee  and  called  her  a  Peri.  The  Peri, 
in  Persian  mythology,  are  beings  of  wonderful  beauty 
and  kindness.  What  the  original  sculptor,  who  may 
have  known  the  Oriental  legend,  intended  her  to  be,  we 
do  not  know;  but  that  a  Greek  who  saw  this  figure  of 
great  physical  and  spiritual  beauty,  without  any  attri- 
butes to  give  her  a  definite  character,  would  have  been 
tempted  to  call  her  Aphrodite  cannot  well  be  doubted. 


3o6 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


And  to  us  moderns,  too,  especially  to  those  of  us  who 
know  Greek  life  and  thoughts,  no  name  seems  so  appli- 
cable to  this  perfect  statue  as  Aphrodite,  the  name  of 
the  most  lovable  and  most  reverently  worshiped  Greek 
goddess. 

The  Nike  of  Samothrace 

Sharing  the  popular  favor  of  this  statue  is  the  Nike 
of  Samothrace,  likewise  in  the  Louvre,  page  30.  She 
was  erected  on  Samothrace  by  Demetrios  Poliorketes 
of  Macedon,  to  commemorate  a  naval  victory  over  the 
Egyptians  in  306  B.C.  Coins  also  were  struck,  and  on 
them  we  see  Nike  in  the  prow  of  a  ship,  blowing  the 
fanfare  of  victory  on  a  trumpet  which  she  holds  in  her 
right  hand,  while  in  her  left  she  carries  what  seems  to 
be  a  trophy.  These  were,  of  course,  also  the  attributes 
of  the  marble  statue.  The  marble  prow  has  been  dis- 
covered, and  in  it  Nike,  the  goddess  of  successful  battles, 
seems  to  be  moving  onward.  Space  is  nothing  to  her; 
she  glides  through  it  easily,  hardly  using  her  wings, 
while  the  breeze  is  playfully  pressing  the  folds  of  her 
garments  against  her.  The  head  is  gone,  but  one  never 
fails  to  see  in  the  glorious  breasts  and  in  the  beautiful 
abdomen  the  hilarious  joy  with  which  the  swift  motion 
through  space  has  imbued  her.  The  figure  is  best 
appreciated  if  one  revives  memories  of  a  similarly  swift 
motion  experienced,  for  instance,  in  the  prow  of  an 
ocean  steamer.    For  the  moment  the  cares  of  the  world 


THE  NIKE  OF  SAMOTHRACE  307 

fall  away,  and  one  is  filled  with  a  sense  of  masterful 
confidence,  listening  to  voices  that  deny  the  existence 
of  the  impossible.  It  is  then  that  the  essence  of  real 
victory  is  felt,  which  is  faith  in  the  success  of  the 
noblest  ideas. 

This  was  the  artist's  conception.  Success  has  crowned 
his  endeavors,  for  he  has  struck  a  true  chord  in  every 
man's  heart.  Mutilated  though  the  statue  now  is,  it  is 
as  well  liked  by  the  peasant  or  tourist  who  happens  to 
stray  into  the  large  hall  of  the  Louvre  as  by  the  scholar 
who  goes  there  to  study.  The  latter  often  feels  per- 
plexed by  the  arrangement  of  the  drapery,  which  with 
its  violently  twisted  folds  makes  a  continuous  observa- 
tion from  one  point  almost  painful.  Looked  at  from 
the  front,  page  30,  the  folds  make  one  desirous  of  step- 
ping to  the  side;  and  even  there,  PI.  XXXI,  Fig.  3, 
they  are  not  restful,  for  they  give  one  the  suggestion 
of  the  rapidity  with  which  the  figure  is  thought  of 
as  passing  out  of  sight.  It  may  be  doubted  whether 
such  conceptions  of  motion  properly  belong  to  the 
sphere  of  sculpture,  but  if  one  accepts  them,  as  this 
sculptor  apparently  did,  one  is  carried  away  with  admi- 
ration for  the  skill  of  the  ancient  artist. 


3o8 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


The  Belvedere  Apollo  and  the  Artemis  of 
Versailles 

The  same  is  true  of  the  Apollo  of  the  Belvedere  Gal- 
lery in  the  Vatican,  PI.  XXXVI,  Fig.  i,  and  the  Arte- 
mis of  Versailles,  PI.  XXXVI,  Fig.  2,  now  in  the  Louvre 
in  Paris.  They  are  masterpieces,  and  have  received 
tribute  as  such  by  admiring  crowds  ever  since  they 
became  generally  known,  about  the  sixteenth  century. 
They  were  by  far  the  best  of  all  the  statues  in  existence 
then,  and  even  at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
when  people  again  began  to  be  interested  in  Greek  art 
after  long  neglect,  there  were  no  other  statues  acces- 
sible that  could  be  called  their  equal.  Excavations  in 
Greece  had  not  yet  yielded  the  treasures  of  the  ear- 
lier periods.  No  wonder,  therefore,  that  the  admiration 
paid  at  first  in  just  tribute  to  these  figures  soon  ex- 
ceeded natural  bounds,  and  that  people,  yearning  to  find 
in  art  the  embodiment  of  those  high  ideals  which  the 
Greek  studies  had  begun  to  teach  them,  believed  they 
saw  qualities  in  them  which  they  did  not  really  possess. 
The  dignity  of  the  earlier  figures,  for  example,  they  com- 
pletely lack.  Almost  sneeringly  the  Belvedere  Apollo 
is  watching  —  perhaps  the  flight  of  an  arrow.  Let  one 
look  in  his  face,  PI.  XXIII,  Fig.  4,  and  study  his  features, 
and  then  analyze  one's  own  emotions.  They  are  hardly 
of  the  nobler  sort.  The  conception  of  the  Apollo  is  not 
noble;  the  execution,  however,  is  of  surpassing  beauty. 


THE  BELVEDERE  APOLLO 


The  first  sight  of  him,  when  one  enters  the  Belvedere 
Gallery  where  he  stands,  reveals  it.  Stands  is  hardly 
the  proper  word,  —  walks  would  be  better.  With  an 
easy,  noiseless  step  this  figure  of  ethereal  beauty  is 
gliding  along.  Sunshine  envelopes  him,  sunshine  is 
reflected  from  his  supple  body;  and  the  longer  one 
looks  the  more  completely  one  is  drawn  under  the 
spell  of  his  physical  charm. 

The  proportions  of  the  figure  are  unusual;  the  legs 
are  too  long  for  the  short  trunk,  but  probably  intention- 
ally so  in  order  to  increase  the  impression  of  movement. 
The  attention  paid  to  them  by  the  sculptor  may  be 
compared  with  the  higher  degree  of  care  which  Prax- 
iteles was  wont  to  bestow  on  the  eyes  of  his  figures. 
Both  hands  are  restorations;  the  right  appears  to  be 
especially  unpleasant,  with  its  big  palm  and  elongated 
fingers.  The  restorer,  who  knew  from  his  studies  of 
anatomy  that  in  nature  long  lower  extremities  corre- 
spond to  equally  long  upper  extremities,  carved  the 
hands  in  keeping  with  the  legs  of  the  figure.  This 
was  a  mistake ;  the  legs  were  elongated  to  create  a  defi- 
nite illusion.  There  was  no  such  end  to  be  served  by 
the  hands,  which  originally,  therefore,  we  may  be  sure, 
showed  more  pleasing  proportions. 

The  Artemis  of  Versailles,  PI.  XXXVI,  Fig.  2,  —  often 
called  by  her  French  name,  from  the  hind  at  her  side. 
La  Diane  a  la  biche,  —  may  be  mentioned  as  a  worthy 
companion  piece  to  the  Apollo  of  the  Belvedere.  In 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


her  case  it  seems  to  be  certain  that  she  is  carved  of 
Greek  marble,  while  of  the  Belvedere  Apollo  some  con- 
tend that  he  is  hewn  of  Carrara  marble.  Certainty  in 
such  matters  is  difficult  to  obtain.  She  was  brought 
to  France  under  Francis  I,  but  she  has  been  less  fortu- 
nate than  the  Apollo  in  finding  a  place  where  she  can 
be  seen  to  advantage,  being  placed  against  the  wall  of  a 
long  and  not  well  lighted  gallery  of  the  Louvre.  In  her 
case  it  is  even  less  the  thought  or  spirit  of  the  composi- 
tion which  kindles  one's  own  with  quickening  fire,  —  it 
is  her  body  and  the  movement  of  her  body  alone  which 
call  for  admiration.  As  queen  of  the  woods  she  has  girt 
up  her  garment  and  bared  her  softly  rounded  legs.  The 
breeze  blowing  the  fold  from  her  left  knee  unveils  the 
loveliness  of  her  thigh,  and  mischievously  tries  to  reveal 
what  the  garment  would  decently  hide.  This  is  a  touch 
as  artfully  suggestive  as  it  is  out  of  keeping  with  the 
conception  of  a  really  divine  character.  The  fact  is,  this 
Artemis  is  a  goddess  only  in  name,  and  in  reality  naught 
but  a  pretense  for  carving  the  body  of  a  beautiful  woman. 
Her  drapery,  too,  contains  more  folds,  perhaps  in  the 
endeavor  of  suggesting  the  breezes  that  fan  her,  than 
are  altogether  pleasing.  The  museum  in  Copenhagen 
possesses  a  torso  of  a  similar  type  which  shows  greater 
dignity  in  the  treatment  of  the  garment,  and  thereby 
suggests  that  the  Artemis  of  Versailles  is  not  an  original 
but  a  copy,  an  idea  which  is  well  sustained  by  the  rather 
poorly  modeled  hind  and  the  awkward  support. 


THE  LAOKOON  GROUP 


The  Laokoon  Group 

No  work  on  Greek  sculpture  to-day  is  considered  com- 
plete which  does  not  discuss  the  Laokoon,  such  is  the 
high  esteem  in  which  this  group  is  held.  Lessing  based 
on  it  his  essay  on  artistic  principles,  which  he  called 
Laokoon,  and  which  contains  as  many  valuable  sugges- 
tions, because  they  are  true,  as  inaccurate  inferences, 
because  they  are  based  on  a  misunderstanding  of  the 
spirit  of  Greek  sculpture  which  Lessing,  together  with 
many  of  his  contemporaries,  believed  was  exemplified 
in  this  group.  The  skill  of  the  artists  (three  are  men- 
tioned) is  almost  painful  in  its  perfection  and  realism. 
One  comes  upon  the  group,  PL  XXXVII,  Fig.  i,  suddenly 
in  the  Vatican  galleries,  and  experiences  a  sense  of  horror 
as  one  sees  and  feels  the  pain  of  Laokoon.  It  is  not  the 
statue  of  the  sufferer,  it  is  the  sufferer  himself.  If  it  were 
not  for  the  cruel  sense  of  curiosity  innate  in  most  people, 
one  would  gladly  turn  one's  back  upon  such  agonies. 
The  many  devices  by  which  pain  has  been  represented 
need  no  description :  the  strained  position  and  com- 
pressed abdomen,  the  heaving  breast,  the  open  mouth 
which  yet  gives  forth  no  sound,  the  anguished  face,— 
they  all  combine  to  convey  the  one  thing  —  physical 
pain.  Nor  is  there  a  redeeming  feature  in  suggested 
justice.  Those  familiar  with  ancient  traditions  remem- 
ber that  Laokoon  had  to  suffer  not  because  he  was 
wicked  or  careless,  but  because  he  had  done  his  duty 


312 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


as  seer,  and  had  warned  the  Trojans.  By  uttering  the 
truth  he  had  offended  some  of  the  gods,  who  were  deter- 
mined to  destroy  his  city,  and  therefore  sent  the  snakes 
to  make  it  appear  that  he  had  Hed.  The  thought  of  the 
group  is  ignoble,  for  it  teaches  the  injustice  of  God. 
Unless  one  has  studied  the  preceding  periods  of  Greek 
art  in  vain,  one  knows  that  such  a  subject  is  funda- 
mentally un-Greek  in  spirit. 

The  disapproval  of  the  subject,  however,  does  not 
dispose  of  the  group,  for  as  an  achievement  of  artistic 
skill  it  stands  as  high  as  it  is  low  in  artistic  conception. 
To  judge  of  it  properly  one  must  understand  the  aims 
of  the  artists  and  their  times,  which  did  not  always 
call  for  the  expression  of  a  noble  idea,  but  were  inces- 
santly clamoring  for  the  highest  exertions  in  the  field 
of  manual  dexterity. 

The  right  arms  of  Laokoon  and  the  boy  at  his  right 
are  v/rongly  restored ;  the  father's  hand  should  be 
slightly  back  of  and  above  his  head,  and  the  boy's 
arm  in  a  similar  position.  When  these  changes  are 
made  the  group  is  seen  to  gain  in  unity,  with  the  atten- 
tion centered  in  Laokoon  even  more  than  before.  The 
boys  are  but  accessories,  of  use  in  the  building  up  of 
the  group,  and  intended  to  reflect  by  their  innocent 
presence  upon  the  injustice  of  the  gods.  Incidentally 
they  increase  the  anguish  of  the  father,  who  sees  them 
perish  with  him.  Their  diminutive  proportions  clearly 
relegate  them  to  the  position  of  inferior  members  of  the 


'  THE  SCHOOL  OF  PERGAMON  313 

composition,  while  the  skill  of  the  artists,  who  have 
treated  them  as  such  without  making  the  inaccuracy 
of  their  smaller  scale  immediately  noticeable,  is  nothing 
short  of  perfect. 

The  head  of  the  Laokoon,  PI.  XXXVIII,  Fig.  i,  is  not 
an  individual  creation.  If  one  imagines  the  snakes  dead, 
and  the  priest's  sufferings  at  an  end,  his  features  regain 
their  natural  composure,  and  reveal  their  close  resem- 
blance to  those  of  a  colossal  head  in  the  Vatican  known 
as  the  Otricoli  Zeus,  PI.  XXXVIII,  Fig.  2.'  Herein  lies 
one  of  the  strongly  realistic  points  of  the  Laokoon, 
that  his  brow  is  not  always  knitted ;  one  feels  that  the 
forehead  can  be  straightened,  and  that  the  eyes  can 
shine  with  the  kind  dignity  of  Zeus. 

The  School  of  Pergamon 

It  is  just  the  opposite  with  the  giants  suffering  defeat 
at  the  hands  of  the  gods  in  the  gigantic  frieze  from  Per- 
gamon now  in  Berlin,  page  314.  Their  deep-set  eyes 
and  darkened  brows  are  theirs  always.  They  are,  as 
their  features  imply,  a  fierce  and  unjust  race.  One 
shudders  at  the  pangs  of  pain  they  suffer,  but  one  turns 
away  from  them  with  a  feeling  of  satisfaction  that  right 
has  won  another  battle  over  wickedness.  There  is,  ac- 
cording to  Ruskin,  no  reason  why  the  ugly  should  not 
be  represented,  provided  it  is  so  represented  that  it 
makes  one  hate  the  ugly  and  admire  the  beautiful. 
This  has  been  done  by  the  Pergamean  sculptors. 


314  GREEK  SCULPTURE 

The  discovery  of  the  Pergamon  reliefs,  which  deco- 
rated a  huge  altar,  and  their  importance  for  the  study 
of  Greek  sculpture,  is  an  interesting  story.  Not  men- 
tioned in  ancient  literature,  except  perhaps  once,  and 
referred  to  in  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  as  the  seat  of 
Satan,  the  mighty  altar  built  under  Eumenes  II  (197- 
159  B.C.)  had  been  entirely  forgotten.  The  reliefs,  how- 
ever, were  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  the  city,  where  tha 
Turks  found  them.  Eventually  they  were  used  in  the 
construction  of  heavy  walls.  The  smooth  back  side  of 
the  large  slabs,  which  are  over  seven  feet  high,  made 
an  excellent  facing  of  the  walls,  and  served  this  purpose 
for  centuries,  until  a  fortunate  accident  in  the  seventies 
revealed  their  identity.  Excavations,  which  were  soon 
undertaken,  yielded  such  large  portions  of  the  reliefs 
that  it  became  possible  to  reconstruct  the  altar,  at  least 
in  part.  This  has  been  done  in  the  Pergamon  Museum 
in  Berlin,  page  314.  The  accurate  date  which  could  be 
assigned  to  these  pieces  of  sculpture  proved  their  origin 
in  the  Greek  autumn  days,  while  their  high  quality 
added  one  more  important  argument  in  favor  of  the 
continued  excellence  of  sculpture  during  this  period. 

There  are  differences  of  technique  in  the  several  slabs, 
but  the  points  of  resemblance  —  a  kind  of  family  rela- 
tionship—  in  them  are  so  many  that  one  readily  recog- 
nizes all  if  one  knows  one.  The  group  with  Athena 
as  central  figure  is  one  of  the  best,  page  322.  She 
has  taken  hold  of  the  giant,  and  although  she  uses  no 


» 


THE  DYING  GAUL  315 

weapon,  he  sinks  before  her,  and  falling  receives  the  mor- 
tal bites  from  her  snake.  The  goddess  sweeps  on,  and 
before  her  the  ground  opens  and  Mother  Earth  her- 
self implores  her  to  spare  the  giant;  but  Athena  refuses, 
and  is  already  met  by  her  constant  companion,  Nike,  the 
goddess  of  victory.  The  ease  with  which  Athena  has 
conquered  the  giant  reminds  one  of  the  often-quoted 
words  of  Aischylos,  that  "all  the  gods'  work  is  effort- 
less and  calm."  This,  however,  is  apparently  not  the 
case  on  another  slab,  PI.  XXXVIII,  Fig.  3,  where  Zeus 
has  to  exert  all  his  power  to  overcome  his  formidable 
opponents.  One  of  the  most  pleasing  figures  of  all 
is  a  goddess  on  horseback,  PI.  XXXVII,  Fig.  2,  —  as 
noble  a  creation  as  any  of  Greek  art,  and  perfect  in 
execution. 

To  the  Pergamon  school,  but  probably  to  an  earlier 
phase  of  it  under  Attalos  I  (241-197  b.c.)  belongs  a  statue 
in  the  Capitoline  Museum  known  since  the  sixteenth 
century,  and  until  recently  wrongly  called  the  Dying 
Gladiator,  page  316.  The  figure  represents  a  Gaul. 
The  tribe  of  the  Gauls  to  which  he  belongs  attacked 
RjOme  in  390  b.c,  and  later  attempted  to  plunder  Delphi. 
On  the  passes  of  Mt.  Parnassus  the  Gauls  were  probably 
overtaken  by  one  of  the  violent  snowstorms  frequent 
there,  and  driven  back.  Badly  frightened,  they  spread 
the  story  that  Apollo  himself  had  appeared  to  them  and 
shaken  his  aegis  in  their  faces  to  protect  his  sanctuary. 
Leochares  is  said  to  have  made  a  statue  of  Apollo  to 


3i6 


GREEK  SCULFTURE 


commemorate  this  event,  and  Mr.  Collignon  suggests, 
but  with  little  plausibility,  its  preservation  in  the  Apollo 
of  the  Belvedere.  The  Gauls  left  Greece,  and  settled  in 
the  northern  part  of  Asia  Minor,  where  they  were  the 
terror  of  the  neighborhood  until  first  Attalos  and  later 
Eumenes  of  Pergamon  beat  them  to  submission,  and 
they  became  the  peaceful  settlers  to  whom  St.  Paul 
wrote  his  "  Epistle  to  the  Galatians." 

The  spirit  of  humility  and  submission  has  not  yet 
been  fostered  in  the  Gaul  who  is  dying  in  the  Capi- 
toline  statue.  He  is  a  typical  Gaul,  with  his  short, 
shaggy  hair  and  the  characteristic  torque  on  his  neck. 
He  has  fought  and  been  wounded;  now  he  is  to  die, 
but  he  keeps  up  his  fight  even  against  death.  With 
pain  in  his  side  and  with  his  blood  ebbing  fast,  he  is 
still  controlled  by  his  will,  and  endeavors  to  rise.  His 
strength,  however,  is  spent;  his  muscles  are  weak,  and 
he  cannot  straighten  his  right  arm  to  a  position  where 
the  locked  bones  relieve  them.  He  is  fighting  to  the 
end,  and  when  he  collapses  he  will  still  be  fighting, — 
a  typical  Gaul. 

The  statue  itself  is  probably  a  copy  after  a  bronze 
original,  now  lost.  Other  marble  copies  of  contempo- 
raneous bronze  works  have  been  recognized  in  a  number 
of  small  figures  of  giants,  Persians,  and  Amazons.  The 
originals,  it  seems,  were  sent  to  Athens  by  Attalos  to 
commemorate  his  victory  over  the  Gauls.  Side  by  side 
with  a  powerful  giant  in  the  Naples  Museum  lies  a  dead 


Dying  Gaul 
(Capitoline  Museum) 


AUTUMN  DAYS  31 7 

Amazon,  PI.  XXXVIII,  Fig.  4,  graceful  even  in  death. 
Hers  is  a  peaceful  repose,  such  as  the  Greeks  desired 
for  themselves  and  those  they  liked.  She  did  not 
struggle  to  the  last,  but,  when  the  hour  to  die  had 
come,  she  submitted  to  the  gods,  and  died  as  beauti- 
fully as  she  doubtless  had  lived.  In  her  very  simplicity 
this  Amazon  is  one  of  the  most  impressive  creations 
of  Greek  sculpture,  and  yet  she  belongs  to  its  autumn 
days.  Is  a  better  proof  needed  of  the  inaccuracy  of  the 
view  that  this  period  is  one  of  decadence? 

It  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  only  four  or  five  Perga- 
mon  sculptors  are  named  in  literature,  with  no  attempt 
to  distinguish  them  by  their  works,  for  it  proves  the 
assertion  made  before,  that  in  the  autumn  days  the 
names  of  the  sculptors  were  of  less  importance  than 
the  names  of  the  art  centers.  Beside  Pergamon,  Rhodes, 
Tralles,  and  Alexandria  are  prominently  mentioned. 
The  Laokoon,  according  to  Pliny,  was  made  by  three 
artists  from  Rhodes,  and  the  colossal  group  of  the  "  Far- 
nese  Bull "  in  Naples  was  accredited  to  Apollonios  and 
Tauriskos  of  Tralles.  With  only  one  or  two  works 
extant  of  the  several  schools,  it  is  impossible  to  formu- 
late their  distinguishing  characteristics,  for  the  known 
works  may  as  well  be  exceptions  as  exemplifications 
of  definite  ideals.  The  "case  is  slightly  different  with 
Alexandria,  which  was  the  great  center  of  culture  and 
learning  of  the  autumn  days.  She  impressed  her 
indelible  stamp  on  the  literature  of  this  period,  and 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


gave  birth  to  pastoral  poetry.  Several  statues  and 
reliefs  owe  their  origin  to  similar  pastoral  tendencies, 
and  are  on  that  account  assigned  to  the  school  of  Alex- 
andria. They  are  bits  of  sculpture  of  delicate  finish 
and  pictorial  design,  but  on  the  whole  too  trivial  and 
accidental  to  be  of  lasting  interest. 

Works  of  this  kind  whose  dates  are  indisputable  have 
caused  these  autumn  days  of  Greek  sculpture  to  be 
wrongly  named  a  period  of  decline.  The  masses  of  the 
people  then  were,  as  they  are  to-day,  waking  up  to  the 
realization  of  their  rights.  They  shared  with  the  nobler 
few  the  privileges  of  education,  but  lacked  culture,  which 
is  the  growth  of  generations.  Their  coarser  taste  de- 
manded statues  and  reliefs  in  great  numbers,  while  their 
well-filled  purses  were  a  continual  source  of  temptation 
to  the  artists.  Since  subsequent  ages  were  even  less 
capable  of  appreciating  the  repose  and  the  dignity  of 
the  best  art,  few  copies  and  few  originals  are  left  of  the 
grandest  works  both  of  this  and  of  all  other  periods. 
But  so  powerful  is  the  message  of  these  few,  so  clear 
its  meaning,  and  so  noble  and  uplifting  its  spirit  of 
truth  that,  like  the  ancient  seeker  of  health  at  the  shrine 
of  Asklepios,  the  lover  of  ancient  art  leaves  his  studies 
better  qualified  to  fill  a  worthy  place  in  life.  Truth, 
honesty,  faith,  moderation,  patience,  and  diligence  are 
the  cardinal  virtues  of  good  men,  as  they  are  the  chief 
characteristics  of  the  best  Greek  sculpture. 


NOTES 


319 


NOTES 

PREFACE 

Page  viii.  Brunn-Aradt  collection  of  plates  ...  or  similar  collections. 

The  collections  of  photographs  by  Mr.  W.  W.  G.  Cole,  Cambridge,  Mass., 
and  by  Dr.  Arthur  S.  Cooley,  Auburndale,  Mass.,  are  very  useful. 

INTRODUCTION 

Page  xv.  Pompeii  and  Herculaneum.    The  most  accessible  account  of 

these  discoveries  is  given  in  Mau-Kelsey's  Pompeii. 

XV.  Lord  Elgin.  For  a  full  account  of  the  removal  of  the  Parthenon 
sculptures  to  England,  and  for  the  official  documents,  see  the  appendix  to 
Michaelis,  Der  Parthenon, 

PART  ONE 

CHAPTER  I 

Page  3.  The  fervor  of  the  few.  This  thought  was  fully  developed  by 
Dr.  W.  S.  Rainsford  in  an  address  in  the  Harvard  Union,  Cambridge, 
two  years  ago. 

3.  Sir  Robert  Ball  made  this  remark  to  Mr.  Armbruster,  who  repeated 
it  to  me. 

5.  The  Appeal  of  a  Work  of  Art.    See  Part  One,  Chapter  III. 
7.  overgreat  delicacy  of  .  .  .  Athenian  sculpture.     See  Part  Two, 
Chapter  XIV. 

7.  Polykleitos.    See  Part  Two,  Chapter  XX. 

7.  Praxiteles  and  Skopas.    See  Part  Two,  Chapter  XXI. 

CHAPTER  II 

Page  8.  The  Mental  Image.  Professor  Emanuel  Loewy,  of  Rome, 
deserves  the  credit  of  having  been  the  first  to  call  attention,  in  his  pam- 
phlet Die  Naturwiedergahe  in  der  dlteren  Griechischen  Kunsi,  to  some  of 

321 


322 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


the  views  advanced  in  this  chapter.  His  treatment  of  relief  sculpture  in  the 
same  pamphlet  appears  to  be  less  accurate, 

14.  generally  fell  short  of  their  ideals.  The  one  exception  is  the  time 
immediately  preceding  the  Persian  wars.    See  Part  Two,  Chapter  XIV. 

CHAPTER  III 

Page  17.  The  Appeal  of  Greek  Sculpture.  Some  of  the  thoughts  con- 
tained in  this  chapter  formed  the  substance  of  an  article  which  I  wrote 
for  the  Boston  Evening  Transcript^  April  19,  1902. 

21.  Says  Mr.  Ruskin.  The  quotations  from  Mr.  Ruskin  in  this  chapter 
are  taken  from  his  Aratra  Pentelici^  Six  Lectures  on  Sculpture.  (Best 
edition  with  introduction  by  Charles  Eliot  Norton.) 

CHAPTER  IV 

Page  29.  The  Artist  and  his  Public.  This  chapter  has  had  the  benefit 
of  suggestions  by  Mr.  Paul  Chalfin,  artist  and  acting  curator  in  the  Boston 
Museum  of  Fine  Arts. 

CHAPTER  V 

Page  42.  spurious  anecdote.  Mr.  Gardner  {Ancient  Athens^  page  248) 
suggests  that  the  story  refers  to  a  contest  between  Pheidias  and  Alkamenes 
for  the  figures  of  the  east  pediment  of  the  Parthenon.  The  accuracy  of 
this  suggestion  can  neither  be  proved  nor  disproved. 

42-43.  metopes  with  powerful  figures  in  the  highest  possible  relief  .  .  . 
(on)  the  outside.  The  architectural  setting  of  metopes  required  prominent 
figures,  and  doubtless  determined  the  thickness  of  the  entire  composition. 
High  relief,  on  the  other  hand,  was  necessary  on  account  of  the  strong 
light,  irrespective  of  the  projecting  triglyphs. 

CHAPTER  VI 

Page  47.  early  vase  painters,  who  before  painting  draped  figures  drew 
them  nude.  This  can  even  now  be  seen  by  studying  the  vases  in  any  good 
collection. 

47.  There  are  exceptions,  —  perhaps  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos.  See  Part 
Two,  Chapter  XXIII,  pages  301  £f. 

47.  Harmodios  .  .  .  by  Antenor.  See  Part  Two,  Chapter  XV,  pages  i6o£E, 


NOTES 


323 


CHAPTER  VII 

Page  55.  resorted  to  the  introduction  of  an  uneven  ground  in  their  temple 
reliefs.  The  uneven  ground  occurs  on  the  frieze  of  the  Theseion  in  Athens, 
built  before  the  Parthenon.  The  Parthenon  sculptors,  therefore,  were 
familiar  with  it,  and  consciously  rejected  it. 

56.  horror  vacuu    See  Part  One,  Chapter  VIII,  page  65. 

57.  air  has  been  substituted  (viz.,  as  background).  This  was  doubtless 
due  to  the  interest  in  painting  which  had  grown  since  the  time  when 
Polygnotos  came  to  Athens,  about  460  B.C.  Warriors  coming  slantingly 
out  of  the  background  are  also  carved  on  the  friezes  of  some  of  the  recently 
discovered  treasure  houses  in  Delphi. 

CHAPTER  VIII 

Page  61.  since  it  (the  vision)  is,  however,  very  erratic.  See  the  footnote 
in  the  Literary  Digest^  October  25,  1902,  page  520,  and  the  article  ibidem^ 
May  16,  1903,  pages  719  and  720,  and  any  handbook  on  physiology  or 
psychology. 

CHAPTER  IX 

Page  67.  Bronze,  however,  was  the  favorite  material  of  the  Greeks. 

Bronze  preponderated  over  marble,  with  the  exception  of  temple  sculpture, 
at  the  rate  of  four  or  five  to  one.  These  figures  are  the  result  of  careful 
investigations  on  the  part  of  the  students  in  my  seminary  course  in  Wellesley 
College  in  190 1 -1902.  Accurate  figures  at  present  cannot  be  obtained. 
The  preponderance,  however,  of  bronze  over  marble  is  proved  beyond  a 
doubt. 

69.  The  conclusions  which  Mr.  Edward  Robinson  has  drawn.  Century 
Magazine^  1892  ;  and  The  Hermes  of  Praxiteles  and  the  Venus  GenetriXy 
Experiments  in  restoring  the  Color  of  Greek  Sculpture  by  J.  L.  Smith 
described  and  explained  by  Edward  Robinson  (Boston,  1892). 

69.  remarks  recorded  in  Greek  and  Roman  literature.  They  are  collected 
in  a  monograph  by  Christian  Waltz,  tjber  die  Polychromie  der  antiken 
Skulptur  (Tiibingen,  1855). 

71.  The  figure  itself  did  not  reach  to  the  bottom  of  the  slab,  but  was 
separated  from  it  by  an  .  .  .  empty  space.  This  space  was  omitted  in  the 
photograph  reproduced  in  Pl.  Ill,  Fig.  3. 

73.  Practical  Experiments.  The  most  important  have  been  made  on 
casts  in  the  Albertinum  in  Dresden  under  the  direction  of  Professor  Treu, 
who  has  published  the  results  at  various  times. 


324 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


73.  says  Mr,  Robinson.    In  the  essay  quoted  above  (first  note  to  page 

69),  The  Hermes  of  Praxiteles  and  the  Venus  Genetrix. 

74.  paintings  of  colored  statues  in  Pompeii.  Mr.  Edward  Robinson 
tells  me  that  on  a  recent  visit  to  Pompeii  he  studied  the  wall  paintings  with 
the  view  of  ascertaining  whether  statues  when  painted  on  walls  ever  were 
painted  white  in  imitation  of  the  natural  color  of  marble.  He  did  not  find 
one  colorless  picture  of  a  statue,  but  numberless  instances  of  paintings  of 
colored  statues.  This  observation,  of  course,  goes  far  to  disprove  any 
possible  objections  to  the  theory  of  color  on  statues  in  Roman  times. 

CHAPTER  X 

Page  79.  Art  Conditions  before  the  Seventh  Century  B.C.  Some  of  the 
best  books  treating  of  this  large  subject  are  given  in  the  Bibliography, 
page  343.  The  most  recent  contributions,  however,  are  found  in  the 
leading  archaeological  journals. 

80.  The  inhabitants  of  Greece,  etc.  The  facts  on  which  the  account  in 
this  paragraph  is  based  are  related  in  the  more  important  histories  of 
Greece.  Ernst  Curtius's  History  of  Greece^  although  by  no  means  the 
most  recent,  still  ranks  as  a  classic. 

80.  The  date  of  the  Mycenaean  Age.  See  Hall,  Oldest  Civilization  in 
Greece. 

82.  suddenly  lapsed.  I  have  little  sympathy  with  the  recent  attempt  to 
argue  from  a  supposed  continuation  of  pottery  manufacture  as  to  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  Mycenaean  civilization.  The  study  of  vases  is  to-day  over- 
done. It  is  in  certain  directions  invaluable,  but  one  must  remember  that 
vase  painting  at  best  is  a  minor  art. 

84.  in  her  sculpture  .  .  .  Greece  was  independent.  A  generally  kind  critic 
of  my  manuscript  wrote :  "The  statement  that  Greece  was  entirely  independ- 
ent of  any  outside  influences  is  a  perfectly  untenable  one,  and  the  slightest 
study  of  the  economic  conditions  of  ancient  Greece  will  prove  its  falsity  at 
once.  The  assumption  of  foreign  influences  in  Greek  art  does  not  in  the 
least  detract  from  its  value.  Moreover,  the  presence  of  Assyrian  elements 
in  Greek  art  is  too  strong  to  be  ignored."  This  critic  voices  the  opinion 
of  the  majority  of  scholars  to-day,  but  it  may  be  left  to  the  student  of 
actually  extant  monuments,  and  not  of  archaeological  deductions  largely 
from  broken  potsherds,  to  judge  which  of  the  two  views  is  preferable. 
Mine  is  based  on  faith  in  the  potency  of  human  nature  and  the  possibility 
of  developing  the  divine  spark  within  one ;  the  other,  it  seems  to  me,  on 
the  lack  of  such  an  invigorating  faith. 

Oriental  influences  upon  Greek  minor  arts  I  do  not  deny.    See  page  85. 


NOTES 


325 


87.  The  earliest  Eg3rptian  monuments  are  the  best.  This  statement  refers 
to  Egyptian  historic  times.  The  recent  excavations  of  the  Hearst  expe- 
dition by  Dr.  Reissner  and  Mr.  Lythgoe  have  unearthed  in  prehistoric 
cemeteries  extremely  crude  works  of  art  antedating  the  first  dynasties. 

I  have  had  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Lythgoe's  suggestions  in  the  formation  of 
my  views  on  Egypt. 

CHAPTER  XI 

Page  91.  bronze  was  far  more  extensively  used  than  marble.  See  note 
to  page  67. 

91.  "  tufa  "  or  poros."  See  H.  S.  Washington  in  American  Journal  of 
Archceology,  Vol.  VII,  page  395,  and  Lepsius,  Griechische  Marmorstudien. 

94.  gold  was  an  unsatisfactory  material.  The  gold  statue  of  Miss  Maude 
Adams,  exhibited  in  Paris  at  the  World's  Fair  in  1900,  offered  the  best  proof 
of  this  assertion.  The  glitter  of  the  valuable  material  made  it  practically 
impossible  to  pay  attention  to  the  form. 

97-98.  cargo  of  a  shipwrecked  Roman  vessel  discovered  off  Cape  Malea. 
The  best  preserved  statue  of  this  cargo  is  a  bronze  statue  of  a  nude  young 
man,  which  is  now  in  the  museum  in  Athens,  where  it  has  been  restored 
in  the  original.  The  photographs  of  this  restoration  have  only  just  become 
accessible,  one  of  them,  page  100,  being  here  reproduced  for  the  first  time 
in  America.  For  the  permission  to  publish  it  I  am  indebted  to  Dr.  Arthur 
S.  Cooley,  of  Auburndale,  agent  for  America  of  the  official  Athenian 
photographer. 

The  discussion  of  this  statue  has  not  been  included  in  the  text  of  the 
book,  because  I  have  not  seen  the  original,  and  because  no  description  of 
the  figure  has  been  published  that  I  feel  justified  in  following.  The  statue 
in  its  present  voluptuous  appearance  is  rather  distasteful  to  me.  I  can- 
not help  thinking  that  its  full  proportions  are  due  to  slight  inaccuracies 
on  the  part  of  the  restorer.  The  bronze  was  badly  broken;  many  parts 
were  missing,  others  bent  out  of  shape.  Even  a  fraction  of  an  inch  added 
all  round  to  the  original  proportions  can  readily  account  for  the  unpleasant 
appearance  of  the  restoration.  The  modeling  of  those  parts  which  accord- 
ing to  official  accounts  are  restored  looks  in  the  photographs  so  decidedly 
inferior  to  the  well-preserved  portions  of  the  breast  that  I  am  inclined  to 
blame  the  restorer  for  what  I  do  not  like  in  the  statue.  This  view  I  express 
the  more  confidently  since  the  finely  modeled  parts,  the  tilt  of  the  head, 
and  the  graceful  gesture  carry  definite  reminders  of  the  best  Greek  art. 

The  gesture  is  a  peculiar  one,  not  known  in  any  other  Greek  figure. 
It  is  now  generally  explained  as  a  stationary  gesture :  the  person  repre- 
sented held  an  object  in  his  extended  hand.    The  position  of  the  fingers,  if 


326 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


this  view  is  correct,  indicates  that  the  object  was  spherical  in  shape.  What 
the  object  was  is  not  known.  Formerly  the  gesture  was  believed  to  be 
transitory i  the  sweeping  gesture  of  an  orator,  or  perhaps  of  the  patron  god 
of  orators,  —  Hermes  Logios.  This  view,  although  it  has  been  discarded 
by  most  as  incompatible  with  the  peculiar  position  of  the  hand,  I  believe 
to  be  more  nearly  correct  than  the  other.  The  "  chorus  "  in  Mr.  Richard 
Mansfield's  production  of  Henry  V  used  an  almost  identical  gesture  in  the 
description  of  distant  scenes  which  it  was  desired  to  place  vividly  before 
the  spectators. 

To  return  to  the  unpleasantly  full  proportions  of  the  statue,  I  may  mention 
another  possible  explanation.  The  later  Greek  and  Roman  taste  often  took 
more  pleasure  in  the  full  development  of  sensuous  bodies  than  in  the  sparser 
proportions  characteristic  of  an  earlier  age.  The  Delian  copy  of  the  Dia- 
doumenos,  PI.  XXII,  Fig.  3,  is  best  explained  as  carved  under  these  influ- 
ences. The  bronze  figure  from  the  sea  also  may  owe  its  origin  to  them  and 
be  the  "portrait"  of  a  body  of  an  indulging  bon  vivant.  That  it  bears 
in  many  ways  strong  resemblances  to  statues  assigned  to  Skopas  (fourth 
century)  is  no  valid  objection  to  this  supposition,  because  Greek  artists  of 
the  autumn  days  (Part  Two,  Chapter  XXIII),  or  even  of  a  later  period, 
were  well  able  to  adopt  some  of  the  characteristics  of  an  earlier  school. 

Dr.  Waldstein,  in  an  article  which  has  just  come  to  my  notice  (^Tke 
Illustrated  London  News^  June  20,  1903),  agrees  with  me  as  regards  the 
gesture  of  the  figure,  but  comes  to  a  different  conclusion  as  to  the  artistic 
value  of  the  statue  in  its  present  appearance.  He  confesses  to  not  having 
seen  the  original,  and  since  he  too  is  compelled  to  draw  his.  conclusions 
from  photographs,  the  credit  due  to  his  view  as  to  that  of  a  well-known 
authority  is  not  strengthened  by  being  founded  on  personal  observation. 
The  best  account  of  the  statue  is  given  by  Dr.  Arthur  S.  Cooley  in  Records 
of  the  Past,  July,  1903,  pages  207-213.  Those  who  admire  the  statue  in 
its  present  state  will  be  interested  to  learn  that  the  entire  statue  has  been 
covered  with  a  thick  layer  of  paste  to  conceal  the  rivets,  seams,  and  joints 
and  has  been  artificially  colored  to  look  like  a  genuine  bronze  statue.  The 
surface  modeling  of  the  statue  is  therefore  not  Greek  but  modern ;  not  by 
Skopas  or  by  Lysippos,  as  has  been  said,  but  by  Mr.  Andr<f,  whose  office 
is  that  of  "  restorer  of  works  of  art"  in  Paris. 

98.  pistol  practice  by  the  Turks.  This  vandalism  was  brought  to  an  end 
by  Lord  Elgin,  who  at  the  loss  of  his  private  fortune  saved  what  could  be 
saved.  By  removing  the  Parthenon  sculptures  to  England  he  helped  to 
arouse  the  interest  of  Europe  and  of  America  in  little  Greece,  and  thus  was 
instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  liberation  of  Greece  from  the  Turkish 
yoke. 


NOTES 


PART  TWO 

CHAPTER  XII 

Page  103.  The  word  "  Daidaleian."    When  the  statuette  here  referred 

to  was  acquired  for  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  Mr.  Edward  Robinson 
asked  me  to  investigate  the  meaning  of  the  inscription.  My  conclusions 
are  published  in  substance  in  his  report  as  curator  of  the  department  of 
classical  antiquities,  1899,  pages  27  and  28. 

109.  series  of  statues  excavated  in  Athens.  For  their  discussion  see 
Part  Two,  Chapter  XIV. 

118.  The  statue  and  the  base  ...  do  not  belong  together.  I  am  well 
aware  of  the  fact  that  this  view  is  not  generally  accepted.  From  photo- 
graphs the  point  cannot  be  proved.  The  demonstration  on  the  original, 
however,  by  Professor  Wolters  in  the  museum  in  Athens,  has  convinced 
me  beyond  the  shadow  of  doubt. 

119.  legs  in  profile  and  the  face  en  face.  The  same  twist  occurs  in  a 
modern  masterpiece,  Mme.  Lebrun's  "  Girl  with  Muff."  The  only  difference 
is  that  Mme.  Lebrun's  skill  has  been  sufficient  to  hide  the  technical  device. 

122.  Additional  works,  described,  with  full  bibliography  added,  by 
Edward  Robinson,  Catalogue  of  Casts,  Boston  Museum,  Nos.  6,  7,  34,  36, 
39,  125-133. 

CHAPTER  XIII 

Page  125.  unacquainted  with  the  principles  of  relief.  For  these  princi- 
ples see  Part  One,  Chapters  V,  VI,  VII,  and  VIII.  In  the  discussion  of 
these  Spartan  tombstones  Professor  Loewy,  in  his  pamphlet  on  the  "  Natur- 
wiedergabe,"  pages  20  ff.,  is  mistaken ;  he  considers  them  to  be  among  the 
best  instances  of  early  relief  sculpture. 

128.  thought  of  as  the  one  back  of  the  other.  The  same  arrangement  is 
seen  on  the  "  Ino-Leukothea  "  relief,  PI.  I,  Fig.  4. 

130.  where  the  baby  is  approaching  her  mother.  The  arm  itself  is  a 
restoration,  but  its  correctness  is  attested  to  by  the  fracture  of  the  back- 
ground where  the  arm  had  been  attached. 

132.  The  pictorial  element  in  the  best  Greek  reliefs  is  absent.  See  also 
Part  One,  Chapters  V-VII,  on  the  principles  of  relief  sculpture,  and 
especially  pages  54  and  55  and  notes  to  pages  55  and  57. 

134.  relief  from  Thasos.  My  account  of  this  relief  is  based  on  a  cata- 
logue description  which  I  wrote  three  years  ago  together  with  my  friend, 


328 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Mr.  G.  C.  Hirst.  Some  of  his  happy  expressions  I  have  ventured  to  retain 
in  the  text. 

140.  "Apollo  "  of  Tenea.    See  page  80  and  Part  Two,  Chapter  XII. 

142.  Such  a  device  was  in  constant  use  with  the  Parthenon  sculptors. 
See  Iris,  east  frieze  of  the  Parthenon,  PI.  I,  Fig.  2,  and  Part  One,  Chap- 
ter VI,  pages  50-51. 

143.  Additional  works  described,  with  full  bibliography  added  by  Edward 
Robinson,  Catalogue  of  Casts,  Boston,  Nos.  4,  8,  9,  ip,  11,  13-16,  17,  18, 
19,  24,  25,  27,  28,  30,  31,  32,  33. 

The  grave  relief  in  Naples,  No.  26,  which  Mr.  Robinson  discusses  in  this 
connection,  belongs,  I  believe,  to  a  later  age. 

CHAPTER  XIV 

Page  144.  For  the  recent  discovery  of  statues  in  Athens  see  the  leading 
archaeological  journals.  They  are  described  in  the  large  ofificial  catalogue 
of  the  museums  in  Athens.  The  abridged  French  translation  of  this  cata- 
logue is  almost  useless. 

These  statues  having  retained  many  traces  of  paint  cannot  be  reproduced 
in  casts,  because  the  process  of  making  a  mold  would  obliterate  the  paint. 
A  colored  plate  of  one  of  them  is  added  as  a  frontispiece  to  CoUignon's 
Histoire  de  la  Sculpture  Grecque.  It  is  said  to  be  an  accurate  copy  of  the 
statue  as  it  looked  when  it  was  discovered.  When  I  saw  the  statue  a  few 
years  ago  it  looked  very  different. 

146.  The  entire  series  has  recently  been  classified.  In  an  address  before 
the  American  Institute  of  Archaeology,  reported  in  the  American  Journal 
of  Archcsology,  Vol.  VI,  No.  i  (January,  1902),  pages  51  f. 

The  attempt  has  been  made  by  some  scholars  to  assign  the  largest 
Akropolis  figure  to  Antenor,  but  the  only  grounds  for  such  an  attribution 
are  that  the  statue  is  colossal  and  that  the  base  is  so  also.  The  fractures 
of  both  pieces  are  such  that  it  is  impossible  even  to  guess  whether  they 
once  belonged  together.  From  other  finds — I  remind  the  reader  of  the 
colossi  of  Naxos,  and  of  the  Athena  from  the  pediment  of  the  Peisistratos 
temple  on  the  Akropolis  of  Athens  —  it  appears  that  colossal  statues  were 
not  rare  before  the  Persian  wars.  It  is  therefore  rash  to  conclude  from 
the  size  of  the  statue  and  of  the  base  that  they  once  belonged  together. 
It  is  still  rasher  to  judge  from  the  appearance  of  the  statue  as  to  the  style 
of  Antenor,  and  on  the  ground  of  this  assumed  style  to  deny  his  authorship 
of  the  Tyrannicide  group  (Part  Two,  Chapter  XV,  pages  160  £f.).  There  is 
less  disparity  between  this  group  and  the  Akropolis  figures  than  there  is 
between  the  male  figures  of  the  temple  of  Aigina  and  the  Athena  standing 


NOTES 


329 


between  them  (Part  Two,  Chapter  XVI).  In  order  to  prove  the  group  to 
be  altogether  different  from  the  one  by  Antenor,  other  arguments  than  the 
one  based  on  his  assumed  "  AkropoHs  "  style  must  be  advanced. 

151.  The  close  intercourse  .  .  .  between  the  different  art  centers  in  Greece. 
See  Part  Two,  Chapter  XII,  pp.  104  ff. 

154.  The  straight  cut  across.  It  appears  also  on  the  mask  of  a  bearded 
warrior  from  Mycenae,  Tsountas  and  Manatt,  The  Mycencean  Age,  Fig.  35. 

155.  a  "cupid's  bow"  (viz., mouth).  For  a  very  similar  mouth  see  the 
head  of  a  youth  from  the  Akropolis  of  Athens,  Gardner,  Handbook,  page  189, 
Fig.  38. 

155.  exquisite  mouth.  The  current  explanation  of  the  "archaic  smile" 
as  a  conscious  endeavor  to  make  the  figures  look  pleasant  is  conclusively 
disproved  by  the  fact  that  the  so-called  smile  rarely  occurs  on  reliefs  where 
the  heads  are  seen  in  profile.  If  the  sculptors  desired  to  enliven  their  com- 
positions by  smiling  faces,  they  would  have  represented  the  smile  every* 
where,  and  not  almost  exclusively  in  figures  in  the  round. 

CHAPTER  XV 

Page  161.  as  yet  unpublished  acquisition  of  the  Boston  Museum  of  Fine 

Arts.  This  piece  was  sold  to  the  Boston  Museum  with  the  right  of  publi- 
cation reserved;  and  this  right,  as  I  understand,  has  not  yet  been  relin- 
quished or  made  use  of. 

162.  The  Restoration  of  Ancient  Statues.  The  habit  of  restoring  figures, 
Professor  Reinach,  the  great  French  archaeologist,  has  recently  proved, 
dates  from  the  time  of  Michelangelo,  when  the  pope,  tired  of  seeing  broken 
arms  and  legs  about  him,  asked  this  sculptor  what  could  be  done  to  make 
his  pleasure  in  his  collections  more  satisfactory.  For  the  thoughtless  and 
indiscriminate  habit  of  restoring  figures  according  to  the  likes  or  dislikes  of 
owners  Michelangelo  is,  of  course,  not  responsible.  If  a  collector  had 
an  Apollo  but  lacked  a  Hermes,  the  next  torso  which  he  acquired  was 
restored  as  a  Hermes  even  if  it  was  another  Apollo.  All  the  old  collections 
in  Italy  are  full  of  such  inaccurate  "  restorations."  Outside  of  Italy  only 
the  Albertinum  in  Dresden,  most  of  the  statues  of  which  were  bought  in 
Italy,  is  rich  —  or  until  recently  was  rich  —  in  such  incongruities;  for  even 
there  the  untiring  labors  of  the  director.  Professor  Treu,  have  begun  to 
bring  order  out  of  the  chaos  by  removing  from  the  statues  all  those  parts 
which  are  clearly  inaccurate  additions. 

165.  improvements  which  Kritios  and  Nesiotes  introduced.  One  of  the 
four  so-called  Farnese  athletes  (Brunn-Arndt  collection.  No.  331),  resembling 
the  Harmodios  figure,  is  by  some  believed  to  be  a  copy  of  the  original 
statue  by  Antenor. 


230 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


171.  heads  of  the  Discus  Thrower.  The  head  on  the  London  statue  is 
antique,  and  probably  belongs  to  the  statue.  It  was  broken  off  and  badly 
damaged  on  the  nose,  lips,  and  chin.  The  Vatican  head  is  modeled  after 
it.  Both  heads  have  been  wrongly  attached  to  the  statues.  Judging  from 
photographs,  the  London  head,  especially  in  the  treatment  of  the  hair,  is 
not  unlike  the  Lancelotti  head,  which  was  not  broken  from  the  statue,  it 
is  said,  when  the  statue  was  found  in  1781  on  the  Esquiline  in  Rome. 

172.  The  argument  of  Dr.  Waldstein.  See  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies^ 
I,  page  168,  and  II,  page  332. 

175.  Charioteer  of  Delphi.  Published  by  Mr.  HomoUe,  the  director  of  the 
French  excavation  in  Delphi,  in  the  Monuments  Piot,  IV,  pages  169  £f., 
PI.  XV  and  PI.  XVI.  Our  illustration,  PI.  XI,  Fig.  2,  is  taken  from  the 
French  publication.  The  statue  is  described  by  Edward  Robinson  in  the 
supplement  to  his  catalogue.  No.  85. 

177.  Additional  works  described,  with  full  bibliography,  by  Edward 
Robinson,  Catalogue,  Nos.  64,  84,  86,  87. 

CHAPTER  XVI 

Page  178.  whose  hair  is  blue.  Blue  was  the  color  that  showed  when 
the  figure  was  found.  It  is  impossible  to  determine  the  original  appearance 
of  the  Typhon,  because  other  colors,  now  lost,  may  have  been  superimposed 
on  the  blue.  From  comparison,  however,  with  other  works  belonging  to 
the  same  stage  of  artistic  advance,  I  believe  the  now  visible  colors  to  have 
been  substantially  the  ones  which  the  artist  intended  should  be  seen. 

179.  Tufa.  Tufa  and  poros,  although  not  necessarily  the  same  material 
(see  note  to  page  91),  are  both  soft  stones,  offering  few  obstacles  to  the 
untrained  sculptor. 

181.  No  sculptors  before  the  Parthenon.  I  might  have  added  "  and 
since "  ;  for  no  other  Greek  pediment,  and  to  my  knowledge  not  one  of  the 
many  Renaissance  and  modern  pediments,  has  been  well  filled.  The  modern 
sculptor  dislikes  the  submission  to  architectural  restrictions,  believing  his 
genius  will  develop  better  if  unhampered.  This  is  not  always  true.  Under 
pressure  the  best  work  is  done.  Joint  work  with  an  architect,  if  thoughtfully 
done,  is  good  for  every  sculptor.  It  will,  moreover,  greatly  benefit  the 
general  public,  whose  aesthetic  sense  to-day  is,  or  at  least  often  ought  to  be, 
offended  by  monuments  where  statues  good  in  themselves  are  placed  in 
unbecoming  niches  or  surrounded  by  ill-adapted  colonnades. 

188.  summed  up  by  Mr.  Robinson.    Catalogue  of  Casts,  page  52. 

189.  The  large  central  figure  of  the  east  gable.  In  the  arrangement  of 
the  figures  on  the  pediment  (gable)  I  follow  Professor  Treu.    There  are 


NOTES 


several  other  arrangements,  but  the  latest  arrangement  by  Treu  is,  without 
the  shadow  of  a  doubt,  the  best. 

200.  The  Olympia  sculptors.  Pausanias  mentions  Alkamenes  and  Paio- 
nios.  There  are,  however,  grave  doubts  as  to  the  accuracy  of  his  statement, 
and  since  for  our  purposes  it  is  of  little  importance  to  know  who  perhaps 
carved  the  pediments,  we  may  leave  the  discussion  of  this  matter  to  others. 

201.  In  connection  with  this  chapter  the  metopes  from  the  temple  of 
Zeus  in  Olympia  may  be  studied,  and,  together  with  them,  statues  like  the 
so-called  Giustiniani  Hestia,  PI.  XL,  Fig.  4,  which  shows  a  similar  treat- 
ment of  the  drapery.  Other  statues  belonging  here  are  reproduced  in  the 
Brunn-Amdt  collection,  Nos.  42,  122,  175,  229,  261-263,  294,  295,  302- 
305,  321,  357,  382. 

CHAPTER  XVII 

Page  206.  and  would  recover."  These  translations  are  quoted  from 
Stuart  Jones,  Select  Passages  from  Ancient  Writers. 

208.  stories  .  .  .  which  have  come  down  to  the  present  day.  The  inaccuracy 
of  these  stories  I  tried  to  prove  in  an  address  prepared  for  the  meeting  of 
the  Archaeological  Institute  of  America  (December,  1902)  and  given  in 
abstract  in  the  Archceological  Journal.  I  there  submitted  an  explanation 
of  how  these  stories  could  have  started.  The  address  in  substance  was  as 
follows : 

Most  modem  writers  tend  to  believe  in  the  guilt  of  Pheidias,  and  it  therefore 
becomes  a  duty  to  clear  him,  because  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  Pheidias  cor- 
rectly understood  the  gods  and  at  the  same  time  was  willing  to  steal  the  sacred 
material  of  which  he  was  bidden  to  make  their  statues.  The  several  stories  do 
not  agree,  some  saying  that  he  was  put  to  death  in  Athens,  others  that  he  escaped 
to  Olympia,  and  after  having  made  the  Olympian  Zeus  there  was  again  accused 
and  executed  on  the  spot.  This  latter  version  is  obviously  false,  for  aside  from 
the  fact  that  the  Eleans  would  not  have  intrusted  the  statue  of  the  national  god 
to  an  escaped  convict,  the  time  is  too  short  between  438  B.C.  and  his  death  to 
icreate  a  work  of  such  tremendous  dimensions.  The  descendants  of  Pheidias, 
moreover,  received  unusual  honors  in  Olympia  down  to  the  latest  times,  while 
his  own  workshop  was  preserved  and  shown  to  visitors  as  one  of  the  most  sacred 
spots  of  the  place.  The  Zeus,  moreover,  was  probably  made  before  the  Athena 
Parthenos,  because  the  temple  was  fully  completed  by  457  B.C.,  when  Pheidias 
already  enjoyed  a  reputation  as  sculptor  of  chryselephantine  statues ;  for  during 
the  earlier  period  of  his  activity  he  had  made,  among  other  famous  statues, 
one  of  gold  and  ivory  for  the  people  of  Pellene  in  Achaia. 

If  the  stories  of  his  dishonesty  in  Olympia,  therefore,  are  utterly  false,  the 
presumption  is  that  those  referring  to  Athens  are  also  groundless,  and  this  is  the 
more  hkely  to  be  the  case,  since  they  never  detracted  from  the  high  esteem  in  which 
he  was  held  by  posterity.  But  how  could  such  stories  grow  up,  the  most  skeptical 


332 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


may  be  tempted  to  ask,  if  they  are  founded  on  no  actual  occurrences  ?  After  the 
lapse  of  two  thousand  years  it  is  impossible  to  answer  this  question  with  absolute 
certainty,  but  it  is  helpful  to  note,  in  the  fiist  place,  that  the  accusations  are  con- 
tained only  in  writings  of  men  who  lived  generations  after  Pheidias,  and  second, 
that  an  explanation  of  how  these  stories  grew  in  later  times  may  be  found  in  a 
grammarian's  note  to  one  of  the  plays  of  Aristophanes.  These  grammarians 
often  quote  earlier  writers  in  part  verbatim.  This  particular  one,  who  says  he  is 
quoting  Philochoros,  a  writer  of  about  280  B.C.,  after  giving  the  story  of  the  accu- 
sation probably  correctly,  uses  the  word  <pvyd)v,  which  means  either  "he  escaped" 
or  "  he  was  banished."  Ancient  manuscripts  are,  and  at  all  times  were,  far  from 
accurate,  and  the  loss  of  a  few  letters  or  of  a  prefix  is  of  such  frequent  occurrence 
that  no  textual  critic  hesitates  to  restore  them,  if  required  by  the  context,  pro- 
vided that  there  are  no  fatal  objections.  It  is  therefore  not  doing  violence  to 
the  text  here  if  one  assumes  that  the  little  word  airo  was  lost  before  (pvydv.  The 
original  word  then  was  d'rro<pvyLl}v,  meaning  he  was  acquitted."  If  we  go  on  the 
assumption  that  an  original  authority,  used  by  Philochoros,  related  the  story  of 
the  accusation,  closing  by  saying  "Pheidias  was  acquitted"  (a-rro<pvyu)v),  it  is  not 
difficult  to  see  that  later  historians,  basing  their  accounts  upon  his,  and  finding 
in  his  manuscript  a  corrupted  (pvyJju,  would  endeavor  to  explain  the  word.  This 
could  be  done  either  by  restoring  the  lost  diro,  or  by  assuming  that  one  or  several 
sentences  had  dropped  out  containing  mention  of  the  place  to  which  Pheidias 
"  escaped."  Everybody  knew  that  Pheidias  had  worked  not  only  in  Athens  but 
also  in  Olympia,  and  it  was  not  difficult  for  the  gossiping  historians  of  later 
times  to  put  the  two  things  together  and  to  rewrite  the  sentences  which,  as  they 
believed,  had  been  lost.  One  man  wrote  them  in  one  way,  another  in  another ; 
and  this  accounts  for  the  different  stories,  varying  considerably,  that  have  come 
down  to  the  present  day.  The  inaccuracy  of  all  these  rewritten  stories  is  the 
more  patent  as  the  charge  of  theft,  according  to  Plutarch,  was  not  proved, 
because  "Pheidias  on  the  advice  of  Perikles  had  from  the  beginning  arranged 
the  gold  on  the  statue  in  such  a  fashion  that  it  was  possible  to  take  it  off  and 
determine  its  weight ;  and  this  Perikles  bade  his  accusers  do." 

208.  brilliant  discovery  of  Professor  Furtwangler.  It  is  published  in  full 
in  Furtwangler's  Masterpieces  of  Greek  Sculpture.  The  arguments  are  so 
cogent  that  I  fail  to  see  the  grounds  on  which  so  many  archceologists  have 
refused  to  accept  them.  Professor  Gardner's  reply  in  his  Handbook  of 
Greek  Sculpture^  pages  265-266,  is  based  on  a  complete  misunderstanding 
of  the  ancient  passages  adduced  by  Professor  Furtwangler.  Furtwangler 
reasons  that  there  was  one  statue  of  Athena  by  Pheidias  known  in  antiquity 
for  its  beauty,  and  called  "  the  beautiful,"  as  told  by  Pliny  (^N.H.  34.  54), 
and  that  the  most  beautiful  Athena  statue  by  Pheidias  was  the  Lemnian 
according  to  Lucian  {Imag.  4),  who  mentioned  especially  her  cheeks  and 
other  parts  of  her  face.  When,  therefore,  Himerios  {Orat.  21.  4)  spoke  of 
a  beautiful  Athena  by  Pheidias,  on  whose  cheeks  he  felt  obliged  to  remark, 
Furtwangler  correctly  followed  Overbeck  {Schriftquellen^  761),  who  believed 


NOTES 


333 


Himerios  was  speaking  of  the  Lemnian.  Nobody  had  ever  seriously 
attacked  Overbeck's  view,  but  when  Furtwangler  began  to  draw  his  con- 
clusions then  many  of  his  colleagues  turned  doubting  Thomases. 

Furtwangler  refers  the  Himerios  passage  to  the  Lemnian  Athena, 
because  it  gives  an  account  of  a  most  beautiful  Athena  by  Pheidias,  men- 
tioning especially  her  cheeks,  and  not  for  the  reason  given  by  Gardner. 
He  then  proceeds  to  draw  his  conclusions  from  other  remarks  of  Himerios 
concerning  the  statue,  namely,  that  it  was  bareheaded,  and  on  the  strength 
of  this  fact  discovers  a  copy  of  the  Lemnian  in  the  Bologna  head.  How 
Mr.  Gardner  can  ridicule  this  whole  argument  by  saying,  "  To  state  that  the 
statue  referred  to  in  this  passage  must  be  the  Lemnia  because  the  Lemnia 
was  bareheaded,  and  at  the  same  time  to  quote  this  passage  as  the  only 
authority  for  the  statement  that  the  Lemnia  was  bareheaded,  is  very  like 
arguing  in  a  circle,"  is  astonishing.  Altogether  incomprehensible,  however, 
is  his  further  statement  that  "  the  statue  of  Athena  referred  to  [by  Himerios] 
is  called  '  the  Parthenos ' ;  and  this  was  the  name  especially  applied  to  the 
gold  and  ivory  statue  that  stood  in  the  Parthenon."  This  statue  in  the 
Parthenon,  although  mentioned  in  ancient  literature  forty-six  times,  accord- 
ing to  Overbeck's  Schriftquellen^  Nos.  645-690,  is  only  once,  by  the  Scholiast 
to  Demosthenes,  called  the  Parthenos.  The  practice,  therefore,  of  calling 
the  statue  exclusively  by  this  name  is  modern.  There  is,  finally,  no  reason 
whatsoever  to  translate  t^v  TrapOevov  of  the  Himerios  passage  as  a  proper 
name  and  to  write  it  with  capitals  as  Mr.  Gardner  does.  Himerios,  for 
rhetorical  reasons,  disliked  the  repetition  of  ttjv  Kd-qvav  one  line  back,  and 
used  T^v  TrapOevov,  the  virgin,  as  a  synonym. 

Mr.  Gardner's  arguments  against  Professor  Furtwangler's  theory  are 
therefore  altogether  invalid.  In  a  note  prefaced  to  the  second  part  of  his 
Handbook,  he  apologizes  for  a  minor  mistake  in  his  previous  note,  showing 
a  desire  to  be  fair.  It  is,  therefore,  especially  regrettable  that  he  has 
permitted  such  untenable  and  unfair,  because  wrong,  statements  to  remain 
in  his  book,  where  they  cannot  but  do  much  harm. 

210.  Additional  Works.  The  Farnese  Diadoumenos  in  the  British 
Museum  (Robinson,  Catalogue  of  Casts,  No.  103)  is  perhaps  correctly 
assigned  to  Pheidias.  It  is  certainly  very  different  from  the  copies  of 
the  statue  by  Polykleitos,  to  whom  it  used  to  be  attributed. 

For  copies  of  the  Athena  Parthenos  see  Robinson,  Catalogue,  Nos. 
412-414,  and  Furtwangler,  Masterpieces  of  Greek  Sculpture,  in  the  chapter 
on  the  Lemnian  Athena. 


334 


GREEK  SCULFTURB 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

Page  211.  For  questions  of  fact  concerning  the  Parthenon  refer  to 
Adolf  Michaelis,  Der  Parthenon.  For  an  excellent  bibliography  see  Robin- 
son, Catalogue  of  Casts,  pages  151-152. 

211.  Perikles  decided.    See  Plutarch's  Life  of  Perikles. 

212.  one  sculptor  made  the  designs  .  .  .,  while  others  were  engaged  to 
execute  them.  See  building  inscriptions  from  Epidauros,  in  part  translated 
by  Mr.  Gardner,  Handbook^  page  372. 

215.  whisking  tail.  The  tail  itself  is  carved  under  great  limitations  of 
space. 

215.  peculiarity  of  human  vision.    Cf.  Part  One,  Chapter  VIII. 
218.  Harmodios.    PI.  V,  Fig.  2. 

2i8.  The  impression  ...  of  disjointed  slabs  ...  is  different.  Cf.  Part  One, 
Chapters  V,  VI,  and  VII,  on  the  principles  of  relief  sculpture. 

2ig.  It  is  not  necessary  to  mention  all  the  devices.  By  one  of  the  devices 
which  I  have  not  discussed  in  the  text  the  great  differences  in  size  between 
the  mounted  horsemen  and  the  standing  boys  are  cleverly  disguised.  This 
is  done  by  preventing  an  immediate  comparison.  To  the  (spectator's)  right 
of  the  boy,  page  38,  a  horseman  is  seen  in  profile,  while  the  boy  himself 
stands  in  full  front.  The  one  stands  erect;  the  other  sits  on  his  horse, 
engaged  in  curbing  him,  in  a  crouching  position.  The  standing  boy  is  a 
figure  commanding  attention ;  the  other  sinks  into  the  background  as  one 
of  the  many  interesting  horsemen.  The  only  parts  of  their  bodies  that 
in  a  quick  survey  of  the  frieze  challenge  comparison  are  the  lower  limbs, 
and  they  are  not  more  dissimilar  in  size  than  can  be  found  with  people 
of  the  same  class.  The  lower  limb  of  the  rider,  however,  is  entirely  out 
of  proportion  to  the  rest  of  his  body.  This  the  artist  trusted  would  pass 
unnoticed,  for  he  had  designed  the  lines  of  his  composition  to  carry  the 
eyes  of  the  spectators  from  right  to  left,  and  not  up  and  down,  and  he  had 
by  means  of  another  device  guarded  against  detection  even  if  the  spectators 
should  swerve  from  the  horizontal  line.  The  parts  of  the  horseman's  body 
are  growing  smaller  gradually  from  the  lower  limbs  to  the  head.  The 
transition  is  cleverly  diiguised  by  the  thigh,  which  may  appear  to  be  fore- 
shortened in  perspective.  Perspective,  finally,  —  that  is,  the  fact  that  the 
rider  is  farther  away  than  the  standing  boy,  —  may  also  account  for  the 
smaller  size  of  his  entire  figure.  In  the  general  design  of  their  composi- 
tion the  Parthenon  sculptors  did  not  admit  perspective,  or,  in  other  words, 
introduce  pictorial  elements ;  but  in  carrying  out  the  illusions  which  the 
practices  of  low  relief  demanded  they  were  not  unwilling  to  make  use  of 
the  most  interesting  helps  that  perspective  offered. 


NOTES 


335 


axg.  Panathenaic  festival.  This  festival  was  celebrated  annually.  Once 
in  four  years,  however,  it  was  celebrated  with  special  pomp  and  called  the 
"  Great  Panathenaic  Festival." 

224.  Olympia  sculptor  ...  on  the  west  pediment.  Part  Two,  Chapter  XVI, 
pages  193  S. 

225.  one  of  the  last  boys  on  the  west  frieze,  page  38. 

230.  rank  among  the  great  masterpieces.  Plutarch's  high  praise  for  the 
Parthenon  included  not  only  the  sculptured  decorations  of  the  building, 
but  also  the  fluted  columns,  the  tiles  of  the  roof,  and  all  the  other  parts  of 
the  temple.  Single  statues  or  groups,  small  reliefs,  and  large  buildings,  as 
such,  were  praised  for  their  art.  Their  friezes  or  similar  sculptures  were 
rarely  considered  worthy  of  mention  among  the  greatest  masterpieces. 

230.  For  additional  temple  sculptures  see  Robinson,  Catalogue  of  Casts, 
No.  108,  frieze  of  the  Theseion ;  No.  424,  frieze  from  Phigaleia ;  No.  490, 
frieze  of  the  temple  of  Athena  Nike  Apteros;  Nos.  491-497,  reliefs  from 
the  balustrade  of  the  temple  of  Athena  Nike  Apteros ;  and  No.  504,  frieze 
of  a  tomb  from  Gyolbashi  in  Lykia. 

CHAPTER  XIX 

Page  231.  the  attempt  ...  to  identify,  for  instance,  the  colossal  statue 
of  Athena  in  the  Ecole  des  Beaux  Arts  in  Paris.  For  an  account  of  this 
statue  and  bibliography  see  Robinson,  Catalogue,  No.  450. 

232.  relief  now  in  Madrid.  Good  account  in  Gardner's  Ancient  Athens ^ 
pages  306  ff. 

233.  Kekule  von  Stradonitz.  Jahrbuch  d.  k.  deutschen  Instituts^  Vol.  V, 
pages  i86ff. 

236.  Even  his  back  is  carved  with  great  skill.    Said  Ernst  Rietschel : 

It  has  always  filled  me  with  admiration  that  the  figures  of  these  pediments  show 
the  same  perfection  in  the  back  as  in  front.  The  artist  knew,  if  once  the  work 
had  left  his  hands  and  his  workshop,  no  human  eye  could  penetrate  to  where  his 
love  and  care  had  created  and  fostered  the  highest  charms.  ...  It  was  a  truly 
divine  impulse  that  drove  him.  .  .  .  The  flowers  blooming  on  lonely  cliffs  that 
cheer  no  human  eye  are  yet  as  perfect  and  as  complete  as  the  most  exquisite 
plants  in  your  well-kept  garden. 

237.  the  "  Three  Fates.'*  To  the  long  list  of  hypothetical  names  of  these 
figures  (see  Michaelis,  page  165)  must  be  added  the  poetic  interpretation  of 
two  of  these  women  by  Dr.  Waldstein,  as  "  the  sea  reclining  in  the  bosom 
of  the  land." 

237.  Demeter.  For  another  seated  Demeter  of  a  century  later  see 
Demeter  of  Knidos,  frontispiece. 


336 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


240.  the  moon  is  driving  her  chariot.    Formerly  it  was  thought  that  the 

moon  was  riding  her  horse  into  the  sea.  Recently,  however,  remains  of  the 
other  horses  of  the  quadriga  have  been  found  on  the  pediment.  See  Gardner, 
Ancient  Athens,  page  308,  note  i. 

243.  outrageous  nose.  The  wrong  notion  that  the  Greek  profile  presented 
a  straight  line,  with  no  break  between  the  forehead  and  the  nose,  has  con- 
tinued to  our  day.  Excepting  works  of  secondary  or  even  less  importance, 
the  perfectly  straight  profile  is  unknown  in  Greek  art.  It  was  introduced 
by  the  imitators  of  the  antique,  who  had  noticed  that  the  ancients  endeavored 
to  reduce  the  unpleasant  break  at  the  root  of  the  nose  to  a  minimum.  The 
beauty  and  vigor  of  a  finely  modeled  Greek  profile  cannot  be  reproduced 
by  the  immovable  emptiness  of  a  straight  line. 

244.  principle  ...  of  suggesting  more.  For  the  principle  of  suggested 
lines  see  Part  Two,  Chapter  XII,  page  107,  and  Chapter  XIII,  page  134. 

245.  Poseidon  struck  the  rock.  To  this  day  a  deep  hole  on  the  Akropolis 
under  the  north  porch  of  the  Erechtheion  is  shown  as  the  place  where 
Poseidon  struck  the  rock. 

246.  their  horses.  The  chariot  of  Poseidon  was  probably  drawn  not  by 
horses  but  by  hippokampoi,  —  mythical  animals,  half  horse,  half  fish. 

247.  For  additional  works  see  Robinson,  Catalogue,  Nos.  417-419,  copies 
of  statues  on  the  west  pediment  of  the  Parthenon ;  and  Nos.  498,  499, 
the  "  Nereid  "  monument. 

CHAPTER  XX 

Page  248.  Polykleitos  of  Argos.    Pliny  {N.H.  34.  5 5)  says,  of  Sikyon. 

249.  Dr.  Waldstein  in  his  recent  essay  on  Polykleitos.  In  the  official  pub- 
lication of  the  American  excavations  at  the  Argive  Heraion. 

249.  Doryphoros  (Spear  Bearer).  For  the  relief  of  a  Doryphoros  in  the 
museum  in  Argos  see  Robinson,  Catalogue  of  Casts,  No.  10 1. 

254.  tendencies  of  later  times.  These  may  also  account  for  the  appear- 
ance of  the  new  statue,  page  100. 

255.  Statues  of  Amazons.  The  literature  on  these  statues  is  copious; 
for  condensed  bibliography  see  Robinson,  Catalogue,  Nos.  97  and  98,  and 
Overbeck,  Griechische  Skulptur,  Vol.  I,  notes  on  pages  527  ff. 

260.  Polykleitos  lived  to  be  an  old  man.  The  tradition  that  he  like  Pheidias 
and  Myron  had  been  a  pupil  of  Ageladas  (see  page  207)  was  once  discredited, 
because  Polykleitos  was  believed  to  be  much  younger  than  Pheidias,  but  it  has 
gained  in  probability  by  the  discovery  of  the  Oxyrrhynchos  papyrus  in  Egypt, 
by  which  he  is  seen  to  have  been  active  as  a  sculptor  as  early  as  the  fifth 
decade  before  Christ,  and  perhaps  even  earlier.  The  temple  of  Argos 
belongs  to  his  later  years. 


NOTES 


337 


261.  For  additional  works  see  Robinson,  Catalogue  of  Casts,  No.  113, 
the  so-called  Idolino,  and  Brunn-Arndt,  Pis.  84  and  323. 

For  grave  monuments  of  the  fifth  century  before  Christ,  see  Robinson, 
Catalogue,  Nos.  453  £f. ;  for  votive  reliefs  of  the  same  period,  ib,^  Nos.  480  £f. 

CHAPTER  XXI 

Page  262.  classical  training.  The  prevalent  neglect  of  classical  training 
is  one  of  the  most  formidable  sources  of  danger  in  the  educational  world. 
Our  intellectual  life  is  rooted  in  and  derived  from  the  classical  achievements. 
It  is  impossible  to  understand  the  present  without  a  knowledge  of  the  past. 
The  past,  on  the  other  hand,  is  of  value  to  us  only  if  it  is  made  to  live  and 
to  interpret  the  world  of  to-day. 

263.  caryatides.    See  PI.  XVII,  Fig.  2. 

263.  Athena-Nike  temple  .  .  .  balustrade.    See  PI.  XXV,  Fig.  2. 

263.  Paionios  erected  a  Nike.    See  PI.  V,  Fig.  3. 

264.  Alkibiades  pressed  one  of  the  great  painters  (viz.,  Agatharchos  of 
Samos).    See  Overbeck,  Schriftquellen,  No.  1124. 

265.  When  winds  are  raging.  This  poem  is  by  Mrs.  Harriet  Beecher 
Stowe,  first  published  in  1855  in  the  Plymouth  Collection. 

266.  Praxiteles.  The  fullest  account  of  Praxiteles,  his  life  and  his  work, 
is  contained  in  Professor  Klein's  book,  Praxiteles. 

267.  "  Marble  Faun."  Made  famous  by  Hawthorne's  novel.  Hawthorne's 
description  of  this  statue  is  given  in  Robinson,  Catalogue,  No.  517,  page  226. 

The  authorship  of  Praxiteles  cannot  be  proved.    See  page  272. 

268.  Brunn  once  believed.  For  bibliography  see  Robinson,  Catalogue, 
No.  518. 

269.  the  arrow,  a  reminder  of  the  pastime  whence  he  has  fled.  The  arrow 
is  introduced  in  a  very  similar  way  in  a  picture  by  Douglas  Volk,  which 
received  a  prize  at  the  twenty-fifth  annual  exhibition  of  the  Society  of 
American  Artists  in  New  York  (1903),  and  which  the  art  critic  of  the  Neiv 
York  Sun  said  reminded  him  of  these  Hues : 

A  boy's  will  is  the  wind's  will, 

And  the  thoughts  of  youth  are  k>ng,  long  thoughts. 

A  reproduction  of  this  picture  may  be  found  in  the  Literary  Digest^  April  18, 
1903,  page  575. 

273.  little  .  .  .  Dionysos.  For  the  treatment  of  the  child  compare  the 
child  in  the  "  Eirene  and  Ploutos"  group,  Robinson,  Catalogue,  No.  515, 
which  is  attributed  to  Kephisodotos,  perhaps  the  father  of  Praxiteles. 

274.  Roman  art  critics.  For  their  verdict  see  Overbeck,  Schriftquellen^ 
under  "  Praxiteles." 


338 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


275.  The  attempt  ...  to  restore  the  Hermes.  The  restoration  is  published 
among  the  plates  of  the  official  publications  of  the  German  excavations  in 
Olympia.    Photographs  of  it  are  obtainable  at  the  Albertinum  in  Dresden. 

276.  mistaken  sense  of  propriety.  The  same  criticism  applies  to  the  fig 
leaves  attached  to  numberless  statues  and  casts.  They  spoil  the  purity  of 
lines  and  masses,  and  call  attention  to  the  parts  which  they  are  meant  to 
hide  instead  of  diverting  it.  Dr.  Johnson,  the  story  goes,  once  visited  an 
exhibition  in  company  with  a  young  man,  who  asked  the  doctor  before  a 
certain  picture  whether  he  did  not  think  the  picture  was  indecent.  "  No," 
retorted  Dr.  Johnson  angrily;  "the  picture  is  not  indecent,  but  your 
question  is." 

277.  doubtful  evidence.    I  hold  the  attribution  of  this  relief  to  Skopas 

to  be  erroneous. 

279.  The  first  accurate  glimpse.  See  Graef's  article  on  Skopas  in  the 
Mitiheilungen  des  Instituts  (^Romische)^  1889,  pages  i89£E. 

279.  two  heads  ...  in  Tegea.  See  Robinson,  Catalogue,  Nos.  522  A 
and  522  B. 

280.  Meleager  ...  in  the  Fogg  Museum  of  Harvard  University.  The 

Meleager  was  published  by  Professor  Richard  Norton  {Harvard  Graduate 
Magazine,  June,  1900),  who  deserves  the  credit  of  having  been  the  first  to 
appreciate  its  beauty.  In  regard  to  its  pose,  which  he  compares  to  that  of 
the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles,  he  is  clearly  mistaken.    See  pages  281  and  282. 

283.  A  splendid  head  of  Niobe.  Frontispiece  to  Zimmermann's  Kunst- 
geschichte,  Vol.  I. 

283.  one  of  her  (Niobe's)  daughters  in  the  Vatican.  The  so-called  Niobid 
Chiaramonti,  PI.  XIX,  Fig.  3. 

283.  On  later  sarcophagi.  See  Baumeister,  page  1030,  Fig.  1245,  and 
Robinson,  Catalogue,  No.  726. 

284.  a  sister  flees  for  refuge  to  her  brother.  In  the  group  reproduced, 
PI.  XL,  Fig.  I,  the  sister  is  broken  away.  She  is  preserved  on  a  frag- 
ment in  the  Vatican  (Baumeister,  Denkmdler  des  Klassischen  Altertums, 
PI.  LXIV,  Fig.  1752).  Her  arm  rested  on  her  brother's  knee  and  there 
held  up  his  drapery. 

284.  the  storm  of  passion  runs  so  high.  Compare  the  story  told  in 
antiquity  (Overbeck,  Schriftquellen,  Nos.  1 734  ff.)  of  a  picture  by  Timanthes, 
representing  the  sacrifice  of  Iphigeneia.  In  this  picture  the  grief  and 
horror  of  the  spectators  at  the  sacrifice  were  so  powerfully  expressed  that 
the  artist  had  no  means  left  of  portraying  the  agony  of  the  father  of  Iphi- 
geneia, and  painted  him  with  his  head  covered,  preferring  to  leave  the  height 
of  human  sorrow  to  the  imagination  rather  than  fail  to  do  it  justice  while 
attempting  to  paint  it. 


NOTES 


339 


287.  on  the  tomb.  The  fact  that  it  was  made  up  of  sixty-five  pieces  suc- 
cessfully disposes  of  the  argument  of  Mr.  Gardner  {Handbook^  page  386, 
note  2)  that  the  statue  could  not  have  stood  on  the  top  of  the  monu- 
ment because  it  was  so  well  preserved.  For  the  picture  of  a  restora- 
tion of  the  monument  see  Catalogue  of  Sculpture  in  British  Museum, 
Vol.  II,  PI.  XIV.  For  other  portrait  statues  see  Brunn-Arndt,  Pis.  427-429 
and  477. 

287.  Artemisia  .  .  .  restored.    See  Robinson,  Catalogue,  No.  585. 

288.  Alexander  sarcophagus.  For  everything  pertaining  to  this  and 
similar  sarcophagi  (for  instance,  the  Lycean  sarcophagus.  Pi.  XXXIII, 
Fig.  2)  see  the  monumental  publication  by  Hamdy  Bey  and  Reinach, 
Une  Nicropole  Royale  a  Sidon. 

289.  For  some  additional  works  see  PI.  XXXV,  Fig.  2,  and  page  92 ; 
also  Brunn-Arndt,  Pis.  13, 18,  71,  123,  126,  257,  259,  310,  372-374,  376-381, 
384,  385,  387,  389  and  especially  74  Eubouleus,  235  Hypnos. 

CHAPTER  XXII 

Page  290.  Lysippos  must  be  explained  in  this  light.  No  other  Greek 
artist,  I  feel  sure,  has  been  so  completely  and  so  persistently  misunderstood 
as  Lysippos.  The  scope  of  the  book  does  not  permit  an  argumentative 
discussion  of  this  artist.  By  turning  to  any  of  the  other  books  on  Greek 
sculpture  the  student  will  see  how  widely  I  differ  from  my  predecessors. 

292.  **  inner  form."  The  interpretation  of  constantia  as  "  inner  form  " 
I  owe,  at  least  in  part,  to  my  friend  and  former  colleague.  Dr.  J.  F.  Coar. 
The  literary  application  of  this  term  Dr.  Coar  has  for  the  first  time  fully 
established  in  his  Studies  in  German  Literature  of  the  Nineteenth  Century 
(Macmillan,  1903). 

294.  Parthenon  frieze  .  .  .  stepping-stones.  See  pictures  of  west  frieze, 
page  60. 

298.  immediate  followers.  Among  them  Eutychides,  who  made  a  statue 
of  the  Good  Fortune  of  Antioch. 

298.  For  additional  works  see  Brunn-Arndt,  Pis.  Nos.  64,  67,  75,  280, 
282,  283,  354. 

CHAPTER  XXIII 

Page  299.  Autumn  Days.  The  name  "  autumn  days  "  is,  I  believe,  one  of 
my  own  coining.  I  first  used  it  five  years  ago  in  my  lectures  on  Greek  and 
Roman  Sculpture  in  Progress  (reprinted  as  Part  IV  in  the  University 
Lectures  on  Arty  Chicago). 


340 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


301.  Aphrodite  of  Melos.  This  discussion  of  the  Aphrodite  of  Melos  is 
based  upon  discoveries  presented  for  the  first  time  in  an  address  to  the 
Worcester  Art  Society,  Worcester,  Mass.,  in  the  spring  of  1903. 

304.  A  view  .  .  .  from  this  side.  It  happens  that  this  is  the  view 
generally  had  of  the  statue,  which  receives  in  the  Louvre  strong  light  from 
its  right  side  only. 

307.  well  liked  by  the  peasant  or  tourist.  When  I  last  enjoyed  a  view 
of  the  original  I  was  startled  by  a  peasant  woman  who,  coming  suddenly 
upon  the  statue,  exclaimed  to  her  husband,  "  O  August !  Sieh  'mal  das 
schone  Ding  da  ohne  'n  Kopf ("  O  August !  See  that  beautiful  thing 
there,  without  a  head !  ") 

308.  Belvedere  Apollo.  CoUignon,  in  his  Histoire  de  la  Sculpture  Grhque, 
assigns  this  statue  to  the  fourth  century  and  to  a  contemporary  of  Praxiteles. 
My  reasons  for  not  accepting  this  attribution  are  found  on  pages  300  f.,  and 
are  based  upon  my  characterization  of  this  entire  period. 

308.  The  dignity  of  the  earlier  figures.  Compare  the  Belvedere  Apollo 
with  the  Apollo  from  Olympia,  page  18,  or  even  with  the  "Apollo"  of 
Tenea,  page  80. 

311.  three  are  mentioned.  Pliny  {N.H.  36.  37)  mentions  Hagesandros, 
Polydoros,  and  Athenodoros. 

313.  Otricoli  Zeus.  If  this  correspondence  of  the  Laokoon  head  with 
the  Otricoli  Zeus  is  accepted,  it  may  do  away  with  the  mistaken  attempt 
of  placing  the  Otricoli  Zeus  in  the  fourth  century,  unless  one  believes  that 
the  Rhodian  sculptors  adapted  the  type  of  an  earlier  century,  which  is,  of 
course,  possible.    See  pages  299,  302,  and  303. 

314.  Revelation.    Chapter  II,  12  and  13. 

315.  Zeus.  For  technical  reasons,  only  the  central  figure  of  this  slab, 
Zeus  himself,  could  be  reproduced  on  PI.  XXXVIII,  Fig.  3.  To  receive  an 
adequate  impression  of  the  power  which  Zeus  is  compelled  to  exert,  one  must 
also  see  his  opponents.  A  picture  of  the  entire  slab  is  given  in  Gardner,  Hand- 
book, page  463.    Excellent  photographs  are  for  sale  at  the  museum  in  Berlin. 

316.  keeps  up  his  fight  even  against  death.  Lord  Byron's  famous  line 
on  the  Dying  Gaul, 

Consents  to  death  but  conquers  agony, 

ill  fits  the  sentiment  of  the  statue,  and  cannot  have  been  written  with  the 
Dying  Gaul  clearly  in  mind.  People  used  to  misinterpret  the  Gaul ;  and 
the  poet,  a  lover  of  Greece  and  of  Greek  ways,  did  the  same  when  giving 
voice  to  a  truly  Greek  thought  he  selected  this  poor  instance  by  which  to 
illustrate  it.  His  words  more  accurately  apply  to  the  Dying  Warrior  from 
Aigina,  PI.  XIII,  Fig.  i,  a  true  Greek,  while  the  Gaul  shows,  and  was 
intended  to  show,  how  a  Greek  should  not  die. 


NOTES 


317.  "  Farnese  Bull.'*    Brunn-Arndt,  Pi.  367. 

318.  Reliefs.  For  the  reliefs  of  this  period  see  Schreiber,  Hellenistische 
Relief bilder^  and  Hauser,  Die  neu-attischen  Reliefs. 

318.  For  some  additional  works  see  Head  from  Pergamon,  PI.  XXXIX, 
Fig.  4  ;  Themis  of  Rhamnos,  PI.  XXXX,  Fig.  2  ;  and  Robinson,  Catalogue, 
Nos.  502,  531,  577,  655,  657,  667-669,  758  ;  also  Brunn-Arndt,  Pis.  9,  48, 
S3,  124,  137,  139,  155,  168,  196,  240,  264,  322,  342,  347^2:,  360,  367,  392- 
394,  424,  425,  433,  440,  478,  479,  480. 


SELECTED  AND  GRADED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Note.  —  The  numbers  prefixed  to  the  titles  of  the  books  designate  the  groups 
to  which  the  books  belong.  Group  i  consists  of  those  books  which  the  interested 
reader  will  find  most  valuable.  The  serious  student  will  need  those  of  Group  2, 
and  the  specialist  those  of  Group  3. 

Complete  bibliographies  of  most  of  the  statues  and  reliefs  discussed  in  this 
book  are  contained  in  the  catalogues  by  Edward  Robinson  and  Friederichs- Wolters, 
mentioned  below. 

GENERAL  BOOKS 

(1)  John  Ruskin.    Aratra  Pentelici^  Six  Lectures  on  Sculpture.  Very 

inspiring  but,  like  all  of  the  writings  of  Mr.  Ruskin,  to  be  used  with 
care. 

(2)  Baldwin  Brown.    The  Fine  Arts. 

(3)  Sir  Charles  Eastlake.   Contributions  to  the  Fine  Arts,  Expen- 

sive but  invaluable. 

INTRODUCTORY  BOOKS 

(1)  F.  B.  Tarbell.    a  History  of  Greek  Art.    Short  and  concise. 

(2)  Ernest  Gardner.  Handbook  of  Greek  Sculpture.   Excellent  archae- 

ological presentation  of  the  subject. 

(1)  E.  VON  Mach.   Sculpture^  Greek  and  Roman.   Published  in  Progress 

(January,  1901)  by  International  Art  Association,  Chicago;  repub- 
lished among  the  University  Lectures  on  Art.  An  attempt  at  a 
short,  popular  presentation  of  the  subject. 

(2)  Kekul^  VON  Stradonitz.     The  chapter  on  "Greek  Art"  in 

Badeker's  Greece.    Not  illustrated  but  very  interesting. 

COMPLETE  AND  FULLY  ILLUSTRATED  HISTORIES  OF 
GREEK  ART 

(2)  Maxime  Collignon.    Written  in  French,  also  German  translation. 

(2)  Johannes  Overbeck.    Written  in  German,  the  most  reliable. 

(3)  Mrs.  Lucy  Mitchell.    An  American  author.    Good  but  somewhat 

antiquated. 

343 


344 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


(3)  Murray.    English.    Most  interesting,  presenting  many  individual 

theories  of  the  author. 
(2)  Max  Georg  Zimmermann.   Kunstgeschichte  des  A  Iter  turns  und  des 

Mittelalters. 

(2)  Adolf  Michaelis.    Vol.  I  of  the  revised  edition  of  Anton  Springer's 

Handbuch  der  Kunstgeschichte, 

(3)  Perry.    Greek  and  Roman  Sculpture. 

SPECIAL  REFERENCES  TO  ART  BEFORE  650  B.C. 

(1)  F.  B.  Tarbell.    Greek  Art.    Introductory  chapters. 

(2)  TsouNTAS  and  Manatt.    Mycencean  Age. 

(3)  Maspero.  Egyptian  Arc hceo logy.  English  translation. 
(3)  Babelon.  Assyrian  Archceology.  English  translation. 
(3)  H.  R.  Hall.    Oldest  Civilization  in  Greece.  Technical. 

FOR  THE  STUDY  OF  ANCIENT  LITERARY  REFERENCES 

(3)  Johannes  Overbeck.    Schriftquellen.    A  collection  of  all  Greek 
and  Latin  references  to  art  known  in  1865. 

(2)  H.  Stuart  Jones.    Selections  of  the  above,  with  translations  into 

English.  (Note.  —  Some  of  the  translations  in  my  book  are  bor- 
rowed from  or  based  on  this  book  of  Mr.  Jones.) 

(3)  K.  Jex-Blake  and  F.  Sellers.    The  Elder  Pliny^s  Chapters  on 

the  History  of  Art.   Text,  translation,  introduction,  and  commentary. 
(3)  S.  H.  Butcher.    AristotWs  Theory  of  Poetry  and  Fine  Arts.  Text, 

translation,  introduction,  and  commentary. 
(3)  Frazer.  Pausanias.  Translation  and  complete  commentary.  (Price, 

$25.) 

READY  REFERENCE  BOOKS 

(1)  E.  Robinson.    Catalogue  of  Casts ^  Boston.    The  standard  book  in 

English. 

(2)  Friederichs-Wolters.    Catalogue  of  Casts,  Berlin.    The  standard 

book  in  German. 

(2)  Baumeister.    Denkmdler  des  Klassischen  Altertums.    An  encyclo- 

pedia of  ancient  monuments. 

(3)  All  the  catalogues  of  important  museums. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  345 

ADDITIONAL  BOOKS 

(3)  Heinrich  Brunn.  Geschichte  der  griechischen  Kiinstler.  Vol.  I, 
Bildhauer. 

(3)  Adolf  Furtw angler.  Masterpieces  of  Greek  Sculpture.  To  be 
used  with  care,  because  offering  some  as  yet  untested  views ;  invalu- 
able to  the  specialist.  It  is  a  most  interesting  book,  written  by  one 
of  the  most  inspiring  and  indefatigable  archaeologists. 

(3)  Adolf  Michaelis.  Der  Parthenon.  Published  in  1870.  It  is  the 
book  on  the  Parthenon. 

(3)  Ernest  Gardner.  Ancient  Athens.  The  latest  summary  of  archae- 
ological investigations  concerning  Athens. 

(3)  Charles  Waldstein.    Essays  on  the  Art  of  Pheidias. 

(3)  Clarac.  Musee  de  Sculpture.  The  small  reprint  known  as  the 
Clarac  de  poche.  An  invaluable  companion,  containing  in  outline 
almost  every  well-known  antique  statue. 


PERIODICALS 

American:  American  Journal  of  Archceology. 

Records  of  the  Past,  Washington,  D.C. 
English  :     Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies. 

German :  Jahrbuch  des  k.  deutschen  archdologischen  Instituts, 
French :      Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts 

Gazette  Archeologique. 

Revue  Archeologique. 
Greek :      ''E^rjixepU  'Ap^aLoXoyiKij. 


Special  references  to  other  books  are  given  in  the  Notes. 


INDEX 


Adams,  Miss  Maude,  gold  statue  of,     Alxenor  of  Naxos,  104,  149 ;  stele 


325. 

Agatharchos,  painter,  337. 

Age  differentiation,  177. 

Ageladas  of  Argos,  207,  336. 

Aigina,  temple  of,  25,  181,  182  £E., 
328 ;  color  on  sculptures  from, 
70 ;  restored  elevation  of,  PI.  XII, 
Fig.  I  ;  pediments  of,  Pi.  XV, 
Fig.  I. 

Aiginetan  bronze,  94. 

Aiolians,  80. 

Aischylos,  128,  196,  315. 

Akrolithic  statues,  94. 

Akropolis,  98. 

Akropolis  figures,  Athens,  120, 144£E., 
1 74, 328  ;  painted,  70 ;  facing  page 
144;  PI.  VIII,  Figs.  1-3  ;  PI.  IX, 
Figs.  3  and  4. 

Akropolis  head  from  south  slope  of 
Akropolis,  282;  PI.  XXXIX, 
Fig.  3. 

Akropolis,  sculpture  found  on,  104. 
Alexander  the  Great,  2 ;  portraits  of, 
293  f. 

Alexander  Sarcophagus,  288 ;  PI. 

XXXIII,   Fig.  i;   PI.  XXXIV, 

Figs.  1-3. 
Alexandria,  317. 
Alkamenes,  42,  322,  331. 
Alkibiades,  264. 

Altar  of  Pergamon,  3 1 3  ff .,  facing 
pages  314,  322;  PI.  XXXVII, 
Fig.  2;  PI.  XXXVIII,  Fig.  3. 


by,  PI.  Ill,  Fig.  2. 
Amazon,  dead,  in  Naples,  316 f.; 

PI.  XXXVIII,  Fig.  4. 
Amazon  frieze,  Maussoleion,  286  f., 

facing  page   46;    PI.  XXXII, 

Figs.  I  and  2. 
Amazons,  Parthenon  metopes,  213.  * 
Amazons,  statues  of,  255  ff. ;  PI. 

XXIV,  Figs.  1-3  ;  draperies  of, 
257  f. 

Ambracia,  sculptors  in,  104. 
America,  2. 

American  sculpture,  14. 
Anatomy  of  Apollo  statues,  114. 
Anima  (breath  of  life),  166,  186. 
Animus  (soul),  166. 
Antenor,  47,  161,  328. 
Aphaia,  deity  worshiped  in  Aigina, 
182. 

Aphrodite  of  Aries,  302;  PI.  XXXV, 
Fig.  2. 

Aphrodite  of  Capua,  305 ;  PI.  XXXV, 
Fig.  3. 

Aphrodite  of  Melos,  47,  301  ff., 
facing  page  300;  PI.  XXXV, 
Fig.  I ;  correct  restoration  of, 
303  f. ;  drapery  of,  compared  with 
Parthenon,  302. 

Aphrodite  of  Praxiteles  in  Knidos, 
276 f.;  PI.  XXVIII,  Fig.  2; 
PI.  XIX,  Fig.  2. 

Apobates,  north  frieze,  Parthenon, 
PI.  XVI,  Fig.  3. 


347 


348 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Apollo,  of  the  Belvedere,  308  ff.,  340; 
PI.  XXIII,  Fig.  4;  PI.  XXXVI, 
Fig.  I  ;  dated  by  CoUignon,  316. 

Apollo  of  Olympia,  193  ff.,  facing 
page  18. 

Apollo,  relief  of,  from  Thasos,  134, 

138 f.;  P1.VII,  Fig.  I. 
"Apollo"  statues,  lopff. ;  age  of, 

164;  anatomy  of,  114;  character 

of,  1 64  ;  hands  of,  1 1 1  ff . ;  pose  of, 

1 1 5  f . ;  points  of  resemblance  of, 

with  Akropolis  figures,  146. 
"Apollo"  with  the  Omphalos,  1 72  ff . ; 

PI.  XI,  Fig.  I. 
"Apollo,"  Choiseul-Gouffier,  173  £f.; 

PI.  XI,  Fig.  3. 
"Apollo"    of    Orchomenos,  113; 

PI.  IV,  Fig.  4. 
"Apollo"  Sauroktonos,  269  ff.;  PI. 

XXVI,  Fig.  2. 
"Apollo,"  Strangford,  no;  PI.  IV, 

Fig.  3. 

"Apollo"  of  Tenea,  no,  140,  facing 
page  80;  compared  with  Dory- 
phoros,  250;  with  Apoxyomenos, 
296. 

"Apollo"  of  Thera,  no;  PI.  IV, 
Fig.  3- 

Apoxyomenos  of  Lysippos,  296  £., 

facing  page  296  ;  PI.  XIX,  Fig.  3  ; 

compared  with  Doryphoros,  296. 
Appeal  of  Greek  sculpture,  I7£f. 
Arcadia,  sculptors  in,  104. 
Archaeological  treatment  of  ancient 

art,  6. 
Archseologists,  10 1. 
"Archaic  smile,"  misnomer,  iS4f., 

186,  328. 
Archermos  of  Chios,  118,  120. 
Argive  bronze,  94. 
Argos,  fragments  from,  252,  2593.; 

PI.  XV,  Fig.  4  ;  PI.  XXIII,  Fig.  3. 


Argos,  temple  of  Hera  at,  145. 

Aristion,  stele  of,  71;  PI.  Ill,  Fig.  3. 

Aristogeiton,  160  f. ;  compared  with 
Aigina  sculptures,  186  ;  with  Dis- 
cus Thrower,  169,  facing  page 
158. 

Aristophanes,  3,  332. 
Aristotle,  30. 
Armbruster,  321. 

Art  centers,  close  intercourse  be- 
tween, 151. 

Art  conditions  before  seventh  cen- 
tury B.C.,  79  ff. 

Artemis,  Daidaleian,  103  ;  of  Delos, 
1 1 7  ff . ;  of  Gabii,  facing  page  92 ; 
of  Versailles,  308 ff.;  PI.  XXXVI, 
Fig.  2. 

Artemisia,  285. 

Aryan  race,  80. 

Assos,  frieze  from,  66,  133 ;  PI.  II, 
Fig.  2. 

Assyria,  13 ;  relation  of,  to  Greece, 
85. 

Assyrian  sculpture,  colored,  68. 

Athena,  of  Aigina,  182,  187!;  in- 
ventress  of  flutes,  1 70  ;  Lemnia, 
208  ff.,  332,  facing  page  202 ; 
PI.  XVII,  Fig.  I  ;  on  Parthenon 
frieze,  1 32  ;  Parthenos,  94,  204  ff. ; 
group,  Pergamon,3i4,  facing  page 
322 ;  and  Poseidon,  struggle  of, 
245  ff. 

Athena-Nike  temple,  27, 55, 263, 33 5 ; 
PI.  II,  Fig.  3;  PI.  XXV,  Fig.  2. 

Athenian  sculpture,  overgreat  deli- 
cacy of,  7,  150  ff. 

Athens,  2  ;  influence  of,  262  ;  sculp- 
tors at,  104. 

Athlete,  see  "  Apollo." 

Attalos  I,  2,  315. 

Attempts,  first,  in  the  round,  103  ff. ; 
in  relief,  1 23  ff. 


INDEX 


349 


Autumn  days  of  Greek  sculpture, 

299  £f.,  326,  339;  characterized, 

300  f. 

BaU,  Sir  Robert,  3. 

Battle  scene,  arrangement  in  Aigina, 
183. 

Beethoven,  3. 

Bigelow,  Hon.  John,  299. 

Birth  of  Athena,  relief  of,  in  Madrid, 
232  ;  on  Parthenon,  231  ff. 

Body,  human,  248. 

Bceotia,  sculpture  in,  104. 

Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  75, 
103 ;  recent  acquisition  of,  92 ; 
vase  fragment  at,  containing  copy 
of  Tyrannicide  group,  161,  329. 

Boston,  statue  of  Hamilton  at,  89. 

Brazilian  draughtsmen,  10. 

Broken  Fetters  :  a  Period  of  Transi- 
tion, i58ff. 

Bronze,  92  ff . 

Bronze  coating  on  Roman  copies, 
77. 

Bronzes  melted,  97. 
Byron,  Lord,  340. 

Byzantium,  scholars  imported  from, 
99. 

Calf  on  "  Harpy  "  tomb,  133. 

Caligula,  95. 

Carrara  marble,  91. 

Carrey,  drawings  by,  238,  242; 
PL  XIV,  Fig.  2. 

Carved  relief,  37. 

Caryatid,  263 ;  PI.  XIV,  Fig.  2. 

Centaur  and  girl,  group  from  Olym- 
pia,  195  ;  PI.  X,  Fig.  i  ;  metope 
on  Parthenon,  55;  PI.  X,  Fig.  3. 

Center  line  in  statues,  270  f. 

Chalfin,  Paul,  322. 

Character  differentiation,  177. 


Character,  stillness  of,  265  ;  sugges- 
tion of,  200. 

Charioteer  of  Delphi,  175  £E.;  PI.  XI, 
Fig.  2 ;  from  frieze  of  Maussoleion, 
PI.  XXV,  Fig.  I. 

Cheramyes,  dedicator  of  statue  to 
Hera,  105. 

Chios,  school  of,  118. 

Christians,  early,  vulgar  zeal  of, 
96. 

Chryselephantine  statues,  94. 
Church,    Protestant,    31;  Roman 

Catholic,  31  ;    its  conservatism, 

67. 

Cicero,  verdict  of,  concerning  Kal- 
amis,  175. 

Circles,  Greek,  mathematically  inac- 
curate, 61  ff. 

Circumlitio,  69. 

Classical  training,  262,  337. 

Coar,  Dr.  J.  F.,  viii,  339. 

Cock,  on  "Harpy"  tomb,  132;  on 
Spartan  tombstone,  127,  132. 

Cole,  W.  W.  G.,  collection  of  pho- 
tographs by,  321. 

CoUignon,  Maxime,  316. 

Colored  statues  of  saints,  67. 

Coloring  of  Greek  sculpture,  67  ff. 

Coloring  of  statues,  practical  experi- 
ments in,  73. 

Commemorative  statues,  comments 
on,  19. 

Conservatism,  144  ff. 

Constantia  of  Lysippos,  292. 

Contrasted  action,  46. 

Conventions  of  sculpture,  51. 

Cooley,  Dr.  Arthur  S.,  325,  326; 
collection  of  photographs  by,  321. 

Cow,  of  Myron,  67  ;  on  Parthenon 
frieze,  54. 

Crete,  32,  81 ;  sculptors  in,  104. 

Curtius,  Ernst,  324. 


350 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Daidalos,  103  ;  pupils  of,  103  f. 
Darwin,  3. 

Dawn  announcing  Helios,  on  Par- 
thenon, 235. 

Dead,  representation  of,  in  sculpture, 
215. 

Death,  brother  of  sleep,  131. 

Deidameia,  198. 

Delian  bronze,  94. 

Delian,  Diadoumenos  of,  254,  326; 
PI.  XXII,  Fig.  3. 

Delphi,  95  ;  attacked  by  Gauls,  315  ; 
exchange  of  artistic  ideas  at,  151. 

Demeter  of  Knidos,  282  f.,  frontis- 
piece. 

"  Demeter,"  Parthenon,  237. 

Demetrios  Poliorketes,  306. 

Destructive  forces,  91  ff. 

Details,  telling  use  of,  172. 

Diadoumenos  of  Polykleitos,  253  £f.; 
PI.  XXII,  Figs.  2  and  3. 

Diane  d,  la  biche,  La,  309  f . 

Dimensions,  of  painting,  22 ;  of  sculp- 
ture, 22. 

Discus  Thrower  of  Myron,  facing 
page  168. 

Distant  planes  on  reliefs,  50. 

Dorian,  invasion,  82 ;  race,  character- 
ized, 105  ;  school  of  sculpture  in- 
distinguishable from  the  Ionian, 
104  f. 

Dorians,  2,  80. 

Doric  frieze,  42. 

Doryphoros  of  Polykleitos,  249  £E.; 
PI.  XXII,  Fig.  I ;  PI.  XXIII,  Fig. 
I ;  bronze  head  from  Herculaneum, 
255;  PI.  XXXIII,  Fig.  2;  com- 
pared with  Apoxyomenos,  296 ; 
in  Argos,  336. 

Draperies  of  statues,  25. 

Drapery,  of  Akropolis  figures,  152; 
on  column  from  Ephesos,  277 ; 


PI.  XXXI,  Fig.  2;  on  "Harpy" 
tomb,  133 ;  influence  of,  upon 
treatment  of  the  nude,  149  ff. 

Dying  Gladiator,  wrong  name  for 
Dying  Gaul,  3 1 5  f . 

Dying  Warrior,  Aigina,  PI.  XIII, 
Figs.  I  and  2. 

Eastlake,  Sir  Charles,  46. 

Egypt,  13;  history  of,  86;  inter- 
course of,  with  Greece,  59 ;  rela- 
tions of,  to  Greece,  86  £f. 

Egyptian,  art  conceptions,  87;  dynas- 
ties, 87 ;  reliefs,  40  ;  sculpture,  col- 
ored, 68;  standing  figures,  87  f.; 
PI.  Ill,  Fig.  I ;  wall  paintings,  11. 

Elegantia  of  Lysippos,  292. 

Elgin,  Lord,  xvii. 

Elimination,  9,  26. 

Ephesos,  sculptors  at,  104;  column 
from,  277  ;  PI.  XXXI,  Fig.  2. 

Epidauros,  92,  334. 

Erechtheion,  263. 

Eros,  117. 

Eumenes  II,  314. 

Euphranor,  295. 

Eutychides,  339. 

Eve,  creation  of,  233. 

Exchange  of  artistic  ideals,  104. 

Eye,  treatment  of,  148. 

Eyes,  Praxitelean,  273,  309;  Sko- 
pasian,  280. 

Face,  treatment  of,  149. 

Faces,  of  Akropolis  figures,  1 53 ; 
from  Olympia,  absence  of  expres- 
sion on,  200. 

Faith,  strength  of,  1 58. 

Fallen  warrior  of  Aigina,  184  f. 

Farnese  athletes,  329. 

"  Farnese  Bull,"  colossal  group,  317. 

Farnese  Diadoumenos,  333. 


INDEX 


<«  Fates,  Three,"  Parthenon,  237, 

239  f.,  facing  page  232. 
Figure  from  bottom  of  the  sea, 

facing  page  100  ;  discussed,  325  f. 
Fitness  of  things,  knowledge  of,  49. 
Flesh  parts,  color  of,  72. 
Flying  figure  from  Delos,  1 1 7  ff .,  327 ; 

PI.  V,  Fig.  2 ;    compared  with 

Apollo  of  Thasos,  139;  dated, 

121  f. 
Forbes,  Miss,  280. 
Furniture,  on  Spartan  tombstones, 

126;  on  "Harpy"  tomb  and  on 

Parthenon,  229. 
Furtwangler,  Adolf,  208  £E.,  332. 

Ganosis,  72. 

Gardner,  Ernest,  89,  206,  322,  332, 
339- 

Gaul,  Dying,  315  f. 

Gauls,  fierce  race,  3 1 5  f . 

Gestures  in  sculpture,  141. 

Ghiberti  gates,  38. 

Gods,  Greek  conception  of,  203. 

Gods  and  giants,  Parthenon  metopes, 

213;  Pergamon  altar,  313  ff. 
Goldsmith's  art,  81. 
Goths,  96. 

Grace  of  workmanship,  1 74. 
Graces,  relief  from  Thasos,  137. 
Greek,  names  of  gods,  99;  sculpture, 

chief  characteristics  of,  318. 
Greenough,  statue  of  Washington  by, 

26. 

Grouping  of  figures,  124;  on  Spartan 
tombstones,  126;  on  reliefs  from 
Thasos,  i35ff. 

Gyolbashi,  tomb  from,  335. 

Hair,  treatment  of,  in  early  sculpture, 
173- 

Hamdy  Bey,  339. 


Hamilton,  statue  of,  by  Rimmer,  Bos- 
ton, 89. 

Hands,  treatment  of,  in  early  sculp- 
ture, 1 1 1  ff . 

Harmodios,  47, 160 ;  resemblance  of , 
to  Parthenon  metope  figure,  218. 

Harpies,  130. 

"  Harpy  "  monument  (or  tomb),  127, 
i29ff.,  187;  PI.  VI,  Figs.  1-4. 

Harvard,  Meleager  at,  280;  PI.  XXX, 
Fig.  I. 

Head,  treatment  of,  in  Egypt,  88; 

in  Greece,  88. 
Helios,  Parthenon,  235;  PI.  XVIII, 

Fig.  2. 

Hera,  head,  from  Olympia,  154; 
PI.  IX,  Fig.  i;  from  Argos,  260, 
facing  pages  2  and  8 ;  PI.  XVI, 
Fig.  2. 

Hera,  Parthenon  frieze,  51. 
"Hera"  of  Samos,  105  ff.,  1 14,  134, 

facing  page  106. 
Heraion  in  Olympia,  178. 
Herakles,  179. 

Herculaneum,  xvii,  255 ;  bronzes 
from,  93. 

Hermes,  Logios,  140,  326;  by  Prax- 
iteles, 97,  237,  271  ff.,  facing  page 
262;  PI.  XXVIII,  Fig.  I ;  PI.  XIX, 
Fig.  I ;  colored  cast  of,  74 ;  relief 
of,  from  Thasos,  137  ff.;  drapery 
of,  147;  and  a  "Grace,"  facing 
page  134. 

Herodotos,  68. 

Hestia,  the  Giustiniani,  331 ;  PI.  XL, 
Fig.  4. 

High  relief,  46  £f.;  requirements  of, 
48. 

Hippias,  161. 
Hippodameia,  1 89  £E. 
Hippokampoi,  336. 
Hirst,  G.  C,  viii,  328. 


352 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Holderlin,  4. 

Homeric  poems,  2,  83,  203. 

Homolle,  175,  330. 

Horror  vacui,  50,  65. 

Horse  of  Selene,  goddess  of  the 

moon,  240. 
Horsemen,  west  frieze,  Parthenon, 

facing  page  38. 
Hydra,  179. 

Hymettos,  Mt.,  marble  from,  91. 
Hypnos  (sleep),  131,  339. 

Idealism,  8. 

Idolino  bronze,  337. 

Ignorance,  early,  of  Greek  sculpture, 

91  ff. 
Ikteinos,  211. 

"Ilissos,"  on  Parthenon,  243. 
Illusion,  facility  of,  in  low  relief,  51. 
Imagination,  18. 
Inanimate  nature,  21. 
India,  2. 

Individual,  the,  in  sculpture,  262  £f. 
Inner  form,  292. 

"  Ino-Leukothea  "  relief,  130;  PI.  I, 

Fig.  4. 
lolaos,  179. 

Ionian  race,  characterized,  105. 
Ionian  school,  indistinguishable  from 

Dorian,  105. 
lonians,  80. 
Ionic  frieze,  42. 

Iris,  on  Parthenon  pediment,  238; 

PI.  XIX,  Fig.  3  ;  on  Parthenon 

frieze,  5  ;  PI.  I,  Fig.  2. 
Island  gems,  84. 
Island  relief,  58  £E. 
Isokephalism,  65  ;  on  reliefs  from 

Assos,i33;  on  "Harpy "tomb,  133. 

Joan  of  Arc,  24. 
Johnson,  Dr.,  338. 


Kalamis,  160,  174  £f. 
Kallikrates,  211. 
Kanon  of  Polykleitos,  2  50  ff, 
Kaufmann  head  of  Aphrodite,  278; 

PI.  XXXIX,  Fig.  I ;  PI.  XL,  Fig.  3. 
Keats,  4. 
Keftiu,  II. 

Kekuld,  Freiherr  von  Stradonitz, 
233. 

Kephisodotos,  sculptor,  337. 

"  Kephissos,"  on  Parthenon,  243 ; 
PI.  XIII,  Fig.  4. 

"  Kladeos,"  reclining  youth,  Olympia, 
192;  PI.  XIII,  Fig.  3. 

Klein  on  Praxiteles,  266,  337. 

Knidian  Aphrodite,  276 ff.;  Kauf- 
mann head,  278. 

Knidian  "  Demeter,"  282  f. 

Kreon,  264. 

Kritios,  48,  161. 

Laborde,  Comte,  head,  242. 
Ladas  of  Myron,  167  £f. 
Lancelotti  palace,  168. 
"Laokoon,"  by  Lessing,  311. 
Laokoon  group,  3 1 1  ff . ;  PL  XXXVI  I, 
Fig.  I. 

Laokoon  head  and  Zeus  Otricoli 
compared,  313  ;  PI.  XXXVIII. 

Lapith,  dying,  metope,  Parthenon, 
215;  victorious,  metope,  Parthe- 
non, 214;  folds  of,  236. 

Lapiths,  Olympia,  189,  193  £E.;  Par- 
thenon, 213  ff. 

Lebrun,  Mme.,  327. 

Lemnian  Athena,  208  ff.,  332,  facing 
page  202  ;  PI.  XVII,  Fig.  i. 

Lemnos,  sculptors  at,  104. 

Lepsius,  R.,  325. 

Lessing,  311. 

Light  and  shadow,  importance  of, 
41. 


INDEX 


353 


Limitations  of  space,  forgotten  in 
Parthenon  pediments,  241 ;  and 
material,  mastery  over,  216. 

Lines  vs.  spots,  64. 

Link  with  the  past  (Tyrannicides), 
160. 

Literary  Digest,  323,  337. 
Literary  evidence  for  coloring  of 

statues,  69. 
Literature,  Greek  and  Roman,  69. 
Loewy,  Professor  Emanuel,  10,  12, 

321,  327. 
Long,  Percy  W.,  viii. 
Low  relief,  48  ff . 

Lycean  sarcophagus.  Pi.  XXXIII, 
Fig.  2. 

Lyseas,  stele  of,  painted,  71 ;  PI.  Ill, 
Fig.  4. 

Lysippos,  290  ff . ;  pose  of  statues  by, 
294,  303;  proportions  of  statues 
of,  295  f. 

Lythgoe,  A.  M.,  excavator,  325. 

Macedonia,  2. 
Madrid,  95,  232. 
Malea,  Cape,  98. 

Mansfield,  Richard,  production  of 

Henry  V  by,  326. 
Mantineia,  base  from,  27 ;  PI.  I, 

Fig.  I. 

"Marble   Faun"  (Satyr),  267  £E. ; 

tail  of,  268 ;  PI.  XXVI,  Fig.  i. 
Marsyas  of  Myron,  169;  PI.  X, 

Fig,  2  ;  compared  with  Olympian 

centaurs,  199  f. 
Mater  Dolorosa  of  antiquity  (Knid- 

ian  Demeter),  282  f. 
Material  of  Greek  sculpture,  91  ff. 
Mausoleum  (Maussoleion),  65. 
Maussolos,  statue  of,   287,  facing 

page  286 ;  tomb  of,  285  £f. 
Medicis,  tomb  of,  29. 


Meleager,  pose  of,  281;  statues  of, 
279  £f.;  PI.  XXX,  Figs,  i  and  2  ; 
compared  with  Hermes  of  Prax- 
iteles, 281. 

Memory  picture,  8  £f. 

Memory,  uncertain,  9. 

Mental  image,  8  ff. 

Metopes,  41 ;  defined,  212 ;  Olympian, 
212  ;  Parthenon,  211  ff. 

Michelangelo,  29,  233,  298,  329. 

Middle  ages  of  Greece,  32,  79. 

Mikkiades  of  Chios,  118. 

Modeled  relief,  37. 

Moderation,  177;  characteristic  of 
Myron,  170. 

Morosini,  98. 

Mother  Earth,  Pergamon  altar,  315. 
Motion  in  sculpture,  116  f. 
Motto  of  Greek  sculptors,  36. 

outh,    Praxitelean,    274  f . ;  Sko- 
pasian,  280  ;  treatment  of,  in  early 
art,  1 54  ff . 
Mycenae,  excavations  at,  86  ;  gate  at 

(lionesses),  106;  PI.  IV,  Fig.  i. 
Mycenaean  age,  32,  80,  81  ;  civili- 
zation of,  2. 
Myron,  160,  166  ff. ;  pupil  of  Agela- 
das,  207. 

Naukratis,  86,  104. 
Naxian  marble,  91. 
"  Nereids,"  figures  of,  from  Lycean 

tomb,  130,  336. 
Nesiotes,  48,  161. 

Nike,  1 1 7 ;  of  Brescia,  305 ;  PI.  XXXV, 
Fig.  4  ;  by  Paionios,  26,  120,  263; 
Pl.V,Fig.  3;  of  Samothrace,  306 f., 
facing  p.  30 ;  PI.  XXXI,  Fig.  3 ;  on 
arch  of  Trajan,  305. 

"Nike,"  of  Delos,  117  ff.;  on  Par- 
thenon pediment,  238  f.;  PI.  XIX, 
Fig.  2. 


M 


354 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Nikias,  69. 

Niobe  group, 283  £f.,  338  ;  PI.  XXXI, 
Fig.  I. 

Niobe,  son  of,  238;  PI.  XL,  Fig.  i. 
Niobid  Chiaramonti  (Vatican),  283  f ., 

310;  PI.  XIX,  Fig.  I. 
Niobid  sarcophagi,  283  f. 
Noblest  ideas,  realization  of,  202  ff. 
Norton,  Charles  Eliot,  322. 
Norton,  Richard,  282,  338. 
Nymphs,  relief  from  Thasos,  135. 

Objective  nature,  5. 
Oinomaos,  1 89  ff. 

Olympia,  120;  exchange  of  artistic 
ideas  in,  151;  Hermes  found  in, 
271. 

Olympia  temple  of  Zeus,  188  £f.; 
plan  of  pediments  of,  PI.  XIV, 
Fig.  i;  east  pediment  of,  189  £f., 
PL  XIV,  Fig.  4 ;  PI.  XV,  Fig.  2  ; 
west  pediment  of,  193  £f.;  sculp- 
tures of,  compared  with  Aigina, 
191 ;  sculptures  of,  compared  with 
Parthenon,  224;  wrong  arrange- 
ment of  figures  on,  195  ff. 

Open  action,  46. 

Oxyrrhynchos  papyrus,  336. 

Painting,  traces  of,  on  pieces  of 
sculpture,  145. 

Paionios,  26,  120,  331. 

Panathenaic  festival,  219. 

Panther  skin  on  Parthenon  metope, 
215,  236. 

Parian  marble,  91. 

Parthenon,  4 ;  view  of,  PI.  XI  I,  Fig.  2 ; 
destroyed,  98,  213. 

Parthenon  frieze,  26  f.,  38,  48  f.,  132; 
arrangement  of,  219;  PI.  XVI, 
Fig.  4 ;  depth  of,  40  ;  discussed, 
21 8  £f. ;  facility  of  looking  along,  63 ; 


few  accessories  represented  on,  71; 
isokephalism  of,  65  ;  east  side  of, 
227  £f.,  facing  pages  60  and  212  ; 
PI.  I,  Fig.  2;  PI.  XV,  Fig.  3; 
north  side  of,  225  £f.;  PI.  XX, 
Figs.  1-4;  south  side  of,  227; 
PI.  II,  Fig.  I ;  west  side  of,  222  £E., 
facing  pages  60  and  218. 

Parthenon  metopes,  55,  213  £f.; 
PI.  XXI,  Figs.  I  and  2. 

Parthenon,  pediments  of, 23 iff.;  east 
pediment  of,  231  £f.,  322  ;  PI.  XII, 
Figs.3  and4;  Pl.XVIII,  Figs.1-3; 
PI.  XIX,  Figs.  2  and  3 ;  west  pedi- 
ment of,  242  ff. 

Parthenon,  sculptors,  51  f.,  64,  141, 
323  ;  sculptures,  42. 

Pastoral  tendencies   in  sculpture, 

3.8. 

Patina,  93. 

Pausanias,  100,  192,  231,  331. 

Pedimental  compositions,  restric- 
tions of,  180  £f. 

Peirithoos,  189,  193  ff.,  facing  page 
188;  PI.  XVI,  Fig.  I. 

Peisistratos,  2,  121,  146,  328. 

Pellene,  statues  by  Pheidias  in,  331. 

Peloponnesian  war,  262. 

Pelops,  chariot  race  with  Oinomaos, 
i89ff. 

Pergamon,  2,  97, 180  ;  head  from,  34; 

PI.  XXXIX,  Fig.  4;  Museum  in 

Berlin,  314  ;  school  of  sculpture 

of,  313  ff. 
Peri,  statue  of,  by  Westmacott,  305. 
Perikles,  94,  207  f.,  211,  264,  facing 

page  2. 

Periods  of  Greek  sculpture,  6. 
"  Persephone,"  Parthenon,  237,  282. 
Persian  wars,  2,  121. 
Perspective,  39  f. ;  aerial,  39 ;  linear, 
39  ;  early  knowledge  of,  127. 


INDEX 


355 


Pheidias,  4,  26,  34,  42,  160,  203  £f., 
248,  322  ;  slanderous  stories  con- 
cerning, 208,  331.  • 

Phigaleia,  temple  of,  335. 

Philochoros,  332. 

Philosophers,  Greek,  32. 

Philosophic  schools,  202.  ^ 

Phoenicia,  relation  of,  to  Greece,  85. 

Physical  effort  and  pleasure  at  ex- 
tended compositions,  60  ff. 

Physical  energy,  waste  of,  64. 

Pictorial  element  in  Greek  sculpture, 
131  f. 

Pig  on  "  Harpy  "  tomb,  132. 
Plato,  69,  203. 

Pliny,  69,  77,  100,  171,  205,  299. 
Plutarch,  4,  332. 
Polygnotos,  323. 

Polykleitean  neglect  of  nobler  side, 
6. 

Polykleitos,  115,  248 ;  ancient  esti- 
mate of,  252  ;  Kanon  (rule  of 
proportions)  of,  295 ;  pupil  of 
Ageladas,  207  ;  teaching  of,  260. 

Polyzalos  of  Syracuse,  1 76. 

Pompeii,  xvii ;  bronzes,  93. 

"Poros,"  91,  178. 

Pose,  of  "Apollo"  statues,  115  f.; 

expressive  of  character,  132  f. 
Poseidon,  245  £E. ;  of  Lysippos,  294. 
Praxiteles,  4,  7,  69,  266  £f.,  288  f., 

306. 

Priestesses,  of  Athena,  145 ;  of  Hera, 
145. 

Principles,  formulated,  290  ff. 
Problems  of  relief  sculpture  solved  in 

Parthenon,  229. 
Profile,  Greek,  336. 
Public,  relation  of,  to  artist,  29  ff . ; 

responsible  for  art  standards,  35. 
Purity  of  form,  69. 
Pythagoras  of  Rhegion,  160,  172. 


Quincy,  Quatrem^re  de,  76. 

Rainsford,  Dr.  W.  S.,  321. 
Raphael,  233. 
Realism,  8. 

Reflex  action,  165,  177. 
Reinach,  Professor  Solomon,  329, 
339- 

Reissner,  Dr.,  excavator,  325. 

Relief  from  Thasos,  i34ff.;  tech- 
nique of,  141  ff.;  Pl.VII,  Figs.  1-3. 

Relief  sculpture,  first  attempts  at, 
1 23  ff . ;  in  proper  light,  4 1 ;  prin- 
ciples of,  37  ff.;  relation  of,  to 
architecture,  53  ff. 

Renaissance,  14. 

Renaissance  artists,  67,  68. 

Restoration  of  statues,  162  f.,  328. 

Restrictions,  of  shape  of  block,  147  ; 
willingness  to  submit  to,  241. 

Rhodes,  317  ;  sculptors  of,  104. 

Rimmer,  American  sculptor,  89. 

Robinson,  Edward,  69,  70,  73  £f., 
188,  304,  323,  324,  327. 

Roman  names  of  gods,  99. 

Roman  writers,  34. 

Rome,  2. 

Rounded  surfaces,  reliefs  on,  57  £f. 
Ruskin,  21,  23,  24,  31,  82,  248,  313, 
321. 

Salamis,  battle  of,  145,  159. 

Satan,  seat  of,  314. 

Satyr  ("Marble  Faun"),  267  ff.; 
PI.  XXVI,  Fig.  i;  PI.  XXVII, 
Figs.  2  and  3. 

" Sauroktonos,"  269 ff.;  PI.  XXVI, 
Fig.  2  ;  PI.  XXVII,  Figs.  I  and  4. 

Scaliger,  30. 

Schliemann,  Dr.,  80. 

Sculptors,  Greek  and  Roman,  com- 
pared, 254. 


356 


GREEK  SCULPTURE 


Selene,  Parthenon,  240;  PI.  XVIII, 
Fig.  3. 

Shadows,  insufficient,  125;  removed, 
43  f. ;  suppression  of,  50  ;  treat- 
ment of,  in  reliefs,  39. 

Shelley,  4. 

Simplicity  of  Greek  art,  4. 
Sincerity,  lack  of,  in  some  Akrop- 

olis  figures,  1 56  f. 
Sirens,  130. 
Sistine  Madonna,  207. 
Skopas,  7,  279  ff.,  288  f.,  326. 
Smith,  J.  Linden,  73. 
Sophokles,  25,  facing  page  8. 
Soul,  its  spiritual  meaning  unknown, 

150,  202. 

Sources  of  knowledge  of  Greek 

sculpture,  91  ff. 
Space,  restrictions  of,  106. 
Spartan  tombstones,  I24£E.;  PI.  I, 

Fig.  3. 

Spirit  of  Greek  sculpture,  xviii,  i. 

Spots  vs.  lines,  64. 

St.  Paul,  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 

(Gauls),  316. 
Standing    warrior  (Spearman)  of 

Aigina,  185  £f.,  facing  page  178. 
Stepping-stones  on  Parthenon  frieze, 

27,  53- 

Sterope  from  Olympia,  191. 

Stiacciato  relief,  40. 

Stowe,  Mrs.  H.  B.,  337. 

Strassburg,  statue  of,  in  Paris,  204. 

Subjective  nature,  5. 

Suggested  lines,  47;  principle  of, 

134  f.,  136. 
Suggestion,  principle  of,  128,  177, 

244. 
Sulla,  95. 

Tegea  pediments,  280. 
Temple  decorations,  I78ff. 


Temple  sculpture,  oldest,  on  Akrop- 

olis,  178. 
Terra  cottas,  40. 
Thasos  reliefs,  132. 
Themis  of  Rhamnos,  341;  PI.  XL, 

Fig.  2. 

Theseion,  323,  335;  slabs  from  frieze 

of,  facing  page  54. 
Theseus  from  Olympia,  1 93  f . 
"  Theseus  "  from  the  Parthenon,  236 ; 

PI.  VIII,  Fig.  I. 
Thorwaldsen,  181. 
Thought,  reality  of,  4. 
Thoughts,  world  of,  to-day,  30. 
Timanthes,  painter,  338. 
Timotheus,  92. 

Tin  garment  on  Aphrodite  in  Vati- 
can, 276. 

Tombstones,  Spartan,  124  £f. 

Torso  in  Copenhagen  resembling 
Artemis  of  Versailles,  310. 

Tradition,  uncertain,  290. 

Tragedies,  Greek,  32. 

Tralles,  school  of  sculpture  at,  3 1 7. 

Transition,  period  of,  1 58  ff. 

Treu,  Professor,  curator  of  the 
Albertinum,  Dresden,  275,  323, 

329,  330. 
Triglyphs  defined,  212. 
Trojan   war,   Parthenon  metopes, 

213. 

"Tufa,"  91,  179. 

Typhon,  178;  PI.  XIV,  Fig.  3.  ) 
Tyrannicides,   163  ff.,  328;  PI.  V, 
Fig.  2. 

Vaison  Diadoumenos,253;  PI.  XXII, 
Fig.  2. 

Variety  in  grouping,  1 3  5  ff . 
Vase  painters  of  draped  figures,  47, 
322. 

Vases,  study  of,  overdone,  324. 


INDEX 


357 


Venus,  of  Capua,  305;  PI.  XXXV, 
Fig.  3  ;  de  Milo  (wrong  name  for 
Aphrodite  of  Melos),  301  ff. 

Venus  Genetrix,  73,  facing  page 
68. 

Vision,  18  ;  erratic,  61  ;  restless,  38  ; 

uncertain,  49,  51. 
Volk,  Douglas,  artist,  337. 

Waldstein,  Charles,  172,  249,  326, 
335. 

Waltz,  Christian,  323. 

Warrior,  bearded,  bronze  head  of, 

from  Athens,  154;  PI.  IX,  Fig.  2. 
Washington,  George,  statue  of,  by 

Greenough,  26. 
Washington,  H.  S.,  325. 
Watt,  3. 

Wax  figures,  19. 

Weber  head,  242;  PI.  XXXIX, 
Fig.  2. 


Wellesley  College,  investigation  of 
students  in  seminary  course  at, 
323- 

Westmacott,  English  sculptor,  305. 
Winckelmann,  xvii,  100,  108. 
Wolters,  Professor  Paul,  327. 
Worcester  Art  Society,  lecture  before 
the,  340. 

Xanthos,  129. 
Xerxes,  1 60  f . 

Youth  reclining  (Kladeos),  Olympia, 
182  f. 

Zeus,  of  Olympia,  189;  Olympian, 
by  Pheidias,  26,  34,  94,  95,  205  ff.; 
head  of,  on  coins  from  Elis,  205  ; 
Otricoli  bust  of,  3 1 3 ;  on  Parthenon 
frieze,  132 ;  on  Pergamon  altar, 
315  ;  temple  of,  in  Olympia,  181. 


PLATES 

Note.  —  The  museums  where  the  originals  are  preserved  are  mentioned 
in  List  of  Illustrations. 


359 


I 


PLATE  I 


Fig.  I.    Apollo,  Marsyas,  and  Slave,  from  Mantinea 


Fig.  2.    Zeus,  Hera,  and  Iris  (East  Frieze,  Parthenon) 


Fig.  3.   Spartan  Tombstone  Fig.  4.  Tombstone 


PLATE  II 


t  iG.  2.   Relief  from  Assos 


Fig.  3.    Battle  Scene  (Athena-Nike  Temple  Frieze) 


PLATE  III 


Fig.  3.  Grave  Stele  uf  Aristion 


Fig.  4.  Painted  Stele  of  Lyseas 


PLATE  IV 


PLATE  V 


PLATE  VI 


PLATE  VII 


The  Three  Slabs  forming  the  Relief 


FROM  Thasos 


PLATE  vrn 


PLATE  IX 


Fig.  3.   Fragment  of  Draped  Figure 
(Akropolis,  Athens) 


Fig.  4.   Fragment  of  Draped  Figure 
(Akropolis,  Athens) 


PT.ATE  X 


6 


PLATE  XI 


PLATE  XII 


mm 

iiiip 

I 

rib 

1 

■ 

1 

1 

1 

!• 

Fig.  I.    Restored  Temple  of  Aigkna 


Fig.  3.   Figures  of  East  Pediment  of  Parthenon 


Fig.  4.    Figures  of  East  Pediment  of  Parthenon 


PLATE  XIII 


PLATE  XIV 


Fig.  4.    Ckmer,  East  I'kdiment.  Olvmpia 


PLATE  XV 


PLATE  XVI 


PLATE 


XVII 


Fig.  I.   Lemnian  Athena 


Fig.  2.   "Caryatid"  from  Erechtheion 


PLATE  XVHI 


:'s  Horse  (East  Pediment,  Parthenon' 


PT  ATE  XTX 


PLATE  XX 


PLATE  XXI 


PT.A'I'K  XXII 


PLATE  XXIII 


Fig.  3.   Head  from  Argos 


Fig.  4.   Head  of  Belvedere  Apollo 


PLATE  XXIV 


PLATE  XXV 


in.ATE  XXVI 


PLATE  XXVn 


Fig.  I.  "Apollo  Sauroktonos  "  Fig.  2.    Satyr  ("Marble  Faun") 

Louvre  copj^  Louvre  torso 


Vatican  copy  with  preserved  tail  Dresden  copy 


PLATE  XXVIII 


PLATE  XXIX 


PLATE  XXX 


PLATE  XXXI 


PLATE  XXXII 


Fig.  I.   Slab  from  Amazon  Frieze  (Maussoleion) 


Fig.  2.   Slab  from  Amazon  Frieze  (Maussoleion) 


PLATE  XXXIII 


Fig.  2.    Lycean  Sarcophagus 


PLATE  XXXIV 


PLATE  XXXV 


PLATE  XXXVI 


PLATE  XXXVII 


PLATE  XXXVIIT 


Fig.  3.  Zeus 
Pergamon  altar 


Fig.  4.    Dead  Amazon 
Pergamon  school 


PLATE  XXXIX 


Fig.  3.   Head  from  Southern  Slope 
OF  Akropolis  (Athens) 


Fig.  4. 


Head  from  Pergamon 


PLATE  XL 


Fig.  3.    Knidian  Aphrodite 
Kaufmann  head 


Fig.  4.  GiusTiNiANi 
"  Hestia" 


GETTY  RESEARCH  INSTITUTE 


3  3125  01062  8101 


